example of political spin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0TjP56U1O0
inquiries into the Iraq war : Alastair Campbell in emotional defence of Tony Blair on Iraq

Lai Wing Tung, Sara

Example of political spin

I chose to use a media release from the Australian Liberal Party, see link below.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/09/27/release-2012-13-final-budget-outcome

Example of political spin

In light of our discussion during the tutorial last week, I figured I would use a George W. Bush speech on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Skip ahead to the 1:00 minute mark for the start of his speech, and around 3:00 for his assurances that the Iraqi government was indeed in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xycyq2j8JI

Colin Woodford

Politcal Spin in Germany

Here is an article from the Telegraph about the former German minister of defence:

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg stripped of PhD after admitting plagiarism

Chancellor Angela Merkel's defence minister was stripped of his doctorate on Wednesday by the German university that awarded the title, after he admitted to flaws in a thesis that is the focus of a plagiarism row.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg apologised "from the bottom of my heart" to parliament earlier on Wednesday for errors he blamed on a busy workload.

But he said he would not resign over the allegations and rejected accusations of plagiarism, insisting he had not deliberately deceived anyone.

Mr Guttenberg, Germany's most popular politician and sometimes named as a possible successor to Mrs Merkel, has been accused of copying parts of his PhD dissertation on constitutional law without correct attribution.

The scandal, dubbed "Copygate", may damage the centre-right coalition ahead of six regional elections this year because the aristocrat has been a rare bright spot in Mrs Merkel's government.

Mr Guttenberg has given the coalition a badly needed dash of glamour and topped voter polls for much of the last two years – and a survey taken on Wednesday suggested his popularity was undimmed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8344209/Karl-Theodor-zu-Guttenberg-stripped-of-PhD-after-admitting-plagiarism.html

As this article addresses the timing of the accusastions have been excellent to fit whith the election schedule. The idea even to look through old theses of politicians in order to prove their untrustworthiness is part of political spin already.

Isabel Mayer

Political Spin: US Presidential Elections - Celebrity Endorsement

This is an example where in the run up to the American presidential elections, the candidates often used celebrities to endorse their policies. In this example, we see a number of celebrities supporting Obama's policies regarding LGBT rights and equality.

 

Celebrities are often used to endorse ideas because viewers will relate more to their favourite celebritie's opinions and therefore support them with their vote. 

Emma Duncombe

David Cameron cycling to Parliament to politically persuade citizens

David Cameron cycling to Parliament but with his bag in the car (= =)

Mr Cameron praised the way Boris Johnson had promoted cycling in London but suggested it was up to town halls rather than central government to make the roads safer. “I hope local authorities can follow his lead and do more,” he said.

Labour said the Prime Minister himself should do more to bring about change and save lives. Maria Eagle, the Shadow Transport Secretary, said: “Cyclists want to see these warm words of support translate into action. There is now a credible and coherent package of proposals to be taken forward, thanks to the excellent manifesto set out by The Times and the recommendations from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.”

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, pledged his support. “We need to make cycling safe and accessible in all parts of Britain, so that more and more people can enjoy it.”

ZHANG Yujie

China Political speech in the US towards the issue of Syria and Iran

The press is from China Dairy, the version of Europe. China Foreign Minister, Yi WANG emphasized China's development strategies and foreign polices on pressing international issues, including Syria and Iran.

In the annual debate in US, WANG said that China has developed fast in the recent years and becomes more involved in the international development through aid or other means of investment. However, China has been criticized by some for not being responsible and constructive as a great power in the world. WANG demonstrated that China will not be like the past imperial power but will seek harmony and play the constructive role in the international issues.

As for Syria, Iran issues, China respects the choice of local people and will not seek gains in both areas. And China has working to promote a peaceful settlement in the nuclear issues in Korean Peninsula.

Some politicians of universities both in USA and Canada made some positive comments in the allegation of China and help audience to think highly of China in the international events.

More details in :http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-09/29/content_17001750.htm


CHENXI CHEN

Political Spin in Malaysia

Here are two videos of the same event, depicting different scenarios.

Quick Summary: A political party, United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) organised a Chinese New Year event in an opposition stronghold in an attempt to lure Chinese voters, and said political party leader posed two questions to the audience (a. Are you ready for Psy?- the breakout star of Gang-nam Style; and b. Are you ready for BN?- the ruling political coalition of which UMNO is the dominant power.)

(the version that says No.)

(the version that says Yes.)

 This second video appears to be uploaded by a Youtube user account registering under the alias of UMNO HQ; leading one to assume that it is affiliated with the party and thus defending the contested version of the events on that day.

nate

Project Week - Economic Manoeuvre in Italy and Trade Union Strikes

The Italian President Giorgio Napolitano has officially approved a financial manoeuvre known as the ‘Stability Law’, which provides many key moves and changes to improve economic growth. This 11,6 billion-euro manoeuvre would theoretically be executed by the start of 2014, yet there are many who still disagree on key points in the text. The three general secretaries of the three largest trade unions in Italy, CGIL, CISL, and WIL, have organised a series of 4 hour strikes in November in opposition to some economic reforms that they believe shouldn’t be put through. In the meantime, Prime Minister Enrico Letta strongly defends this manoeuvre; emphasizing the need for change as well as the need to ‘say no’ and making people understand who is truly leading.  Various other political figures have expressed their opinions, some criticising the strikes, others emphasizing the burden that this new manoeuvre, and therefore the government, is carrying and which needs to be lightened.

I have chosen three news outlets which are known to be fairly different in their approach to political news and that reported this controversy in different ways, with slightly different views on the matter and some putting more emphasis on certain aspects of the matter than others.

The first outlet is the online news website based on its television equivalent Rai News 24 (Rai is Italy’s public broadcasting network, comparable to the BBC), and it is known as fairly neutral and unbiased. This seems to be the case in the article regarding the strikes, where the key points are presented as well as different points of view from various sides. The Prime Minister’s opinion on the matter is expressed in quotes, and there are paragraphs regarding the Stability Law itself and opinions of the matter by other members of parliament.

The second news outlet is the online version of the newspaper La Repubblica, known to be more left wing in its political views.  The article seems to focus more on the trade unions’ move and intentions rather than anything else, providing less emphasis on the Prime Minister’s reactions and actual facts on the manoeuvre.

The final news outlet is the online version of the news Il Giornale, which is a right wing paper owned by Berlusconi. Usually known to be against government policy (when Berlusconi is not in power), in this case the article mentions the strikes but mostly focuses on the Stability Law and the various opinions about it, and in particular its specific aspects.

Throughout the articles a variety of sources were used, from politicians to members of the trade unions to the Prime Minister itself. None of the articles tried to construct a very particular view of the issue, even though La Repubblica seems to be putting the unions and the strike first. Il Giornale instead shadowed the unions with emphasis on the manoeuvre and its supporters.

I personally found all the articles useful in deciding my view on the issue. Each provided key elements of most aspects of the manoeuvre and strike, but I must say that the Rai News 24 article was the one that provided the most general summary and insight into all aspects of the story. Overall though, no crucial information was missing from any article, and no extreme bias was present.

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=182862
http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2013/10/21/news/stabilit_brunetta_indecente_che_non_si_conosca_testo_definitivo_sindacati_verso_lo_sciopero_generale-69067305/?ref=HRER2-1
http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/interni/manovra-arriva-parlamento-c-nodo-tasse-barricate-pdl-960369.html

Lorenzo Milani

Project – MP’s expenses, round 2

A topic which outraged much of the British public back in 2009 was the outrageous claims our MPs were making on expenses – duck houses, toilet seats and even porn! It seems that the battle over tax payers’ money has not yet ended and these two reports (taken from the dailymail online and bbc news online) reveal this. The stories discuss MPs’ expenses claims but also, mainly, MPs hiring family members as secretaries.

One would expect the daily mail, a tabloid newspaper, to be slightly more sensationalist over the matter and it does not disappoint. Even in introducing the story lexis such as ‘soared’ and ‘the relatives enjoy salaries as high as £50,000’ (my own highlighting). The bbc, in contrast, seems to present a more balanced argument, with slightly less bias: ‘Typical pay for an office manager ranges between £25,000 and £39,999 a year, although some MPs pay more than that’. It also lists the MP’s claiming the most on travel but shows the representatives from Northern Ireland and from the Orkneys and Shetlands (who would obviously spend the most on travel costs as they have the furthest to travel) which would subtly suggest to the reader that their claims are legitimate.

The daily mail takes a decidedly different approach in legitimising MP’s claims: ‘The public outcry over MPs employing family members began in 2008, when Tory MP Derek Conway was accused of paying his two sons for non-existent jobs’ which frames the story in a completely different light – it is claiming that this is something shocking and which deserves an outcry from the public. Whereas the bbc simply states the facts and slightly skirts around the subject and, rather than outright saying ‘MP’s employ family members’ it claims that ‘155 MPs employ someone with the same family name in their office’ – giving them room to manoeuvre.

Both of these articles, although maybe not as outright as the other, do suggest that MPs hiring their family as office staff is not right, which I do agree with. Saying that, however, I believe that perhaps some backstory is missing from both articles – were the family members interviewed by an independent party who did not know who they were? If they were right for the job then it would be unfair not to hire them I believe. Perhaps more context would have been helpful in creating a fuller conclusion – although I do not think that would change my mind as it has become clear that the tax payer cannot trust politicians completely with their money when it comes to bending the expenses rules.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419462/Quarter-MPs-jobs-family-Taxpayers-politicians-employ-wives-children-soars-4m-year.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24063954

Jo Aitchison

NSA Leaks. Guardian Vs The Daily Mail

Edward Snowden is a particularly hot topic at the moment and even despite the media coverage and commentary from all sides, both government, media and from the general public, is still a subject that will have huge ramifications with the future of intelligence services and transparency with the public.

I have chosen  two articles from The Guardian and The Daily Mail to illustrate the two newspapers different reporting styles, that give insight into their political ideologies and end goals. Both have vested interests in how to report the story. The Guardian at its heart is a left wing paper and makes no attempt to hide this fact, as also unashamedly The Daily Mail does not hide its right wing roots, indeed links to fascism in the 1930s prove this point but I digress... The Guardian has an interest to fight for transparency and the right for newspapers to print about what its government is going if it is in the public interest, The Daily Mail however has the opinion that it is dangerous to report on how our intelligence service works whether or not it is in the public interest.

Firstly simply taking a look at the two headlines each respective paper uses to head their articles the differences in tone and opinion is inconspicuous.

The Daily Mail ran with: 'Guardian has handed a gift to terrorists' warns MI5 chief: Left-wing paper's leaks caused 'greatest damage to western security in history say Whitehall insiders
Firstly they take a quote out of context to hammer home the danger of what the guardian is doing, simply paraphrasing from a speech the Mi5 chief gave, without presenting it in context. Describing the paper as 'left wing' is also an attempt to smear them as if they cannot be left wing and present a factual persuasive argument based on evidence. There is a sense of snobbery that right wing papers use to dismiss left wing papers as is evidence here.

The Guardian ran with: The Guardian in the firing line in coverage of Mi5 chiefs speech, a clear concise headline that deals with the facts, using language that is in no attempt meant to persuade and shows no sense of bias. Its a factual article that is designed to allow the reader to make up his or her own mind about the subject based on the evidence and facts in front of them. It's especially interesting because as mentioned the Guardian has an interest to fight for press freedom but the papers ideology is to present the facts as a newspaper should do. Present the news.

My own personal opinion on the matter is split. We do vote in a government and in doing so intrust them with protecting us, there are things that with public knowledge can endanger us and that is why we have security services to protect us, so in some sense I sympathise with The Daily Mail,  however lately with the amount of scandals and mistrust with governments, transparency is perhaps better, perhaps if our governments were more entrusting in us and allowed us to make up our minds on how we want to be protected and what freedoms we want, we could in turn trust them with our security.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450237/MI5-chief-Andrew-Parke-The-Guardian-handed-gift-terrorists.html

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/09/theguardian-edward-snowden

Shimon Greenidge-Forsyth.

Project Week - NSA leaks reports that US had been hacking into Mexico's ex-president's email account

I have decided to focus on the allegations from a German magazine, which published a leaked document from NSA contractor Edward Snowden that suggested that the US had been hacking into Mexico’s ex-president’s public email account during his time in office.

I have chosen two news articles from the Guardian and the Daily Mail to illustrate the point of how the political beliefs of a particular news source can offer a different slant or perspective of a given news controversy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/mexico-condemns-us-nsa-hacking-presidents-emails

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2469490/NOT-eyes-NSA-exploited-mail-server-SPIED-Mexican-presidents-email-account-FOR-YEARS.html

The Daily Mail openly expresses a more biased, negative and disgraced perspective of the alleged findings, which can be out rightly witnessed in the headline: ‘Not for your eyes only! NSA 'exploited' mail server, spied on Mexican president's email account for years’.  The headline states the allegations as fact and paraphrases the word ‘exploited’ to construct the Daily Mail’s own negative opinions of the story.

The Guardian’s news article of the story, however, seems more unbiased, and less focused on sensationalising the allegations. The article seems to focus more on Mexico’s outrage than using this as a way to enhance the news source’s own contempt for the allegations, as can be seen in the Daily Mail’s article. This is demonstrated in the use of relevant sources, including the ministry’s statement that ‘this practice is unacceptable, illegal and against Mexican and international law".

To summarise, the Guardian’s article seemed to give me a broader appreciation of the controversy, by stating how this scandal could affect US and Mexico’s ties and their attempt to “improve co-operation on cross-border security, migration and fighting organised crime”. This helped me to place this story in a bigger political context, which the Daily Mail failed to do with its sensationalising of the allegations and ham fisted approach to presenting an unbiased construction of the events.

Jonathan Hawes

Project Week-Snowden leaks

I have chosen the news about the leaks from Edward Snowden. There are different opinions on whether the Guardian should publish leaks by Mr Snowden. On the other hand, there are lots of debates in the Hong Kong media on whether the Hong Kong government should grant political asylum to Mr Snowden.

With reference to different media in Hong Kong, there are several impression based on the political stand of different press. One of the newspapers which is usually on the government side stresses in an article about the ways which is the most beneficial to the China government but do not have much focus on some deeper issue like the intention of Snowden, the relationship between the States and China etc.

Based on the UK media, we can see there are lots of different opinions upon this issue. The Guardian emphasis the responsibility to disclose information that affects the public while some other media which support the Conservative party keeps arguing the national security and the risk of providing chance for terrorist to attack the country. In an article about an interview with Mr Snowden conducted by the Guardian, I got an impression that it focuses on a particular angle by quoting Mr Snowden’s wordings which emphasize the good intention and aim of disclosing those leaks. It really provides me an impression that Mr Snowden is doing the correct and righteous things.
However, when I read some other articles such as The Telegraph, more information about the consequences of the leaking is mentioned and this make me think more and in a wider picture.

For me, the BBC seems cover more aspect about the issues. It quoted what Sir David, the former head of the UK’s communications surveillance center GCHQ saying that ‘ You have to distinguish between the original whistle-blowing intent to get a debate going, which is responsible thing to do, and the stealing of 58,000 top-secret British security documents and who knows how many American documents, which is seriously, seriously damaging.’  In my opinion, this helps to led reader to think more about the issue instead of focusing on one particular angle.

To conclude, some of the news article did confuse me in some way. The media do use lots of facts (i.e.: direct quote from the interviewer said). However, I think it is the arrangement of information that matters. Even though there are lots of facts, but if the facts are based on one particular side, objectivity is still not attained despite authenticity is achieved.

Sara, Lai Wing Tung

Project week task USA Government Shutdown

In Early October, the United States of America went into a governmental shutdown. Being an American I was feeling many things but mainly only two feelings; the first feeling was confusion and the second feeling was embarrassment. I didn’t really know what a government shutdown meant until I read into it and spoke about it with a fellow peer who was studying economics who enlightened me about the debt ceiling and pretty much made the government shutdown reality for me.

            A small summary of the issue would be as follows; the House of Representatives in America is led by the Republican Party and our president is Democratic where lies the main problem and reason why the shutdown happened in the first place. The shutdown was based around the issue of money and where the Democrats with Obama was spending the money and how much of it was being spent. The government shutdown happened after the republicans refused to give into what the Democrats wanted and nobody wanted to compromise enough. One of the main articles I chose, which is the CNN article is an unbiased (in my opinion) article that describes the government shutdown and gives the reader an unbiased description of what the government shutdown is and who it will affect and why.

            The huffingtonpost article I chose describes who the Americans think are the main cause of the Government shutdown. When I read the article, the news was just what I thought it would be; most Americans are blaming the republican party for causing the government but there is still blame being given to every person in the government who has a main part or contributed anything which includes the speaker of the house from the republicans, head democrats including the president.

            In my opinion, the government shutdown was necessary because I think it shook up the entire nation and made everybody realize the effects something like this could have on us if we didn’t come to a conclusion fast. I think personally reading a biased article will not affect me because of the fact that I know its showing one side over the other. If I was asked who I would blame I would agree with the lady from Texas that is quoted in the huffingtonpost and blame everybody in the government who had an impact. Even though I’m not going to be asked which side I would side with, I am better off knowing what the shutdown was about and I am thankful it is all over and will be dealt with at a later date so hopefully communication will be better in the future.

-Jeffrey Lasher

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/government-shutdown/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/government-shutdown-republicans-poll_n_4069254.html

Political Controversy: American Military Sexual Assault

Political Controversy: American Military Sexual Assault,

published on Friday 18 October 2013

Background: 

Wilkerson, is 44 and described as an "air force superstar" by officials. Wilkerson was based at the Aviano air force base in Italy, where he was serving as inspector general for the 31st Fighter Wing, when he was accused by a 49-year old physician's assistant of assaulting her as she slept in a guest bedroom at his home after a party. In November 2012, he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to a year in jail.

Angle1:

Officials claimed that sex assault cases are banned by government; once government finds sex assaults, the offender will be punished severely. 

Source from:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/pilot-james-wilkerson-military-sexual-assault

‘In November 2012, he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to a year in jail, dismissal and pay forfeiture.’

"I have spent the last six months quietly trying to live my life in peace and rebuild my career after serving time in confinement for a crime I did not commit," Wilkerson said. "All the while, I have watched as my name, and those of my family, have been dragged through the mud to satisfy political agenda without concern as to accuracy or fairness."

Basically, this news from The Guardian, reports the miscarriage of Wilkerson’s sexual assault case. Because the language expression of this article, it seems that it did not choose the neutral angle to report this news. Instead, the report attempted to show sympathy for Wilkerson’s issue and trended to indicate that the former reported US military sexual assault news maybe not the truth. To analyze the words and phrases used in this coverage, the report or quotations in the report didn’t explain why the evidence to prosecute Wilkerson was insufficient. Instead, it just emphasized how miserable life Wilkerson led under this ‘miscarriage’, which intended to draw the sympathy from public.

Source from：

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sexual-assault-military-white-house_n_3246713.html

Obama, traveling to Texas on Thursday, has not spoken much on the issue, but gave a brusque response earlier in the week to reporters asking about the grim statistics. “The bottom line is, I have no tolerance for this,” he said. “If we find out somebody’s engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged -- period.”

From the quotation of Obama, it is not to find that the official angle of this issue is ‘no tolerance’. It indicates the protection of victims and the determination of regulating soldiers’ behaviour.

Angle2:

In fact, measures taken by government are not effective. Moreover, government also attempted to conceal part of the data, even evidence.

Cases about sex assault haven’t been treated justly and the right of victims haven’t be protected and guaranteed.

Source from:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/21/gillibrand-reaffirms-position-on-military-sex-assault-prosecution/

“Instead, the bill approved by the committee last week would require review of prosecution decisions by more senior leaders and would make it a crime to retaliate against those who report an assault.”

"Until you have the prosecutions and people going to trial and have the transparency and accountability, you're never going to change this culture within the military," she said.

These quotations are from a blog of CNN’s journalist. Instead of talking about the bright future of decreasing the high sexual assault, he focused on the dangerous situation of victims who reported the assault. These victims were face to revenge from military, both threaten mentally and for these victims future career. As indication from former scholars, CNN has close cooperation with American government, and sometimes, its news was provided by the American government. Thus, it is worth to be skeptical about whether this news was deliberately released by the American government to maintain the public debate into a proper degree.

Source from:

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_23196405/most-military-sexual-assault-cases-go-unreported

A new report shows up to 26,000 military members were sexually assaulted last year. Obama has said he has no tolerance for the problem and the Pentagon must address it.

The officials weren't authorized to speak on the record and thus requested anonymity.

Though Obama’s opinion is apparent and determined for no tolerance on sexual assault issue, the official action is worth to be doubt. Officials are reluctant to authorize the specific number of sexually assaulted victims.

Source from: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/military/news/2013/06/06/65602/5-myths-about-military-sexual-assault/

 

Testimony was offered in the wake of the release of the Defense Department’s annual report showing that despite the military’s efforts to ramp up sexual assault prevention programs in recent years, rates of sexual assault in the military climbed by 34 percent between 2010 and 2012. A total of 26,000 service members are estimated to have experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012 compared to 19,300 in 2010. Moreover, less than 3 out of every 100 estimated sexual assaults in the military in 2012 were ever prosecuted—a shockingly low percentage that has shown no sign of improvement.

Another reason why allowing women into combat positions is an insufficient explanation of rising rates of sexual assault is because it ignores the fact that more than half—53 percent—of victims of sexual assault in the military are men. In 2012 of the 26,000 military personnel estimated to have experienced sexual assault, 14,000 were men and 12,000 were women.

It is similarly incorrect to believe that the higher number of male victims of sexual assault is a result of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law that prohibited gay and lesbian military members from serving openly. The data show that repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has not contributed to an increase of sexual assaults committed against men.

For this America progress organization’s report, it uses a set of data to question the effectiveness of American government’s action on preventing sexual assault issue. It states that the data comes from the annual report of American Defense Department, and makes the comparison of different data. That aims to high light several arguments. First, it indicates that public ignore that more than half (53 percent) of victims are males. Second, the government demonstrates that the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell’’ (public and allow homosexual issue) did not contribute to the increase of male sexual assaults crime. By contrast, the number of victims is continuously increasing. 

Ellen WANG

project week task - UK's foreign aid spending

Project week task – ChiShan Lo

For my project, I have decided to concentrate on the controversy behind the UK’s vast funding of foreign aid to other countries and the arguments it has created politically within Britain.

I have found three different sources of information concerning this topic of discussion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/william-hague/10138113/Foreign-aid-is-an-investment-in-our-future.html - The Telegraph ‘Foreign aid is an investment in our future’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343683/Britains-foreign-aid-madness-Cuts-home-STILL-hand-G8-country.html - The Daily Mail ‘Britain's foreign aid madness: Cuts at home, but we STILL hand out more than every other G8 country’

http://britishpatriotssociety.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:the-arguments-against-foreign-aid&catid=36:our-articles&Itemid=53 – British Patriots Society ‘The arguments against foreign aid’

Key differences – The article printed by the Telegraph online strongly supports the supply of foreign aid. It then argues further to support the decision of increasing the supply to 0.7% of national income to the world’s third world countries. By firstly introducing his argument with the fact that ‘a child is vaccinated against deadly disease every two seconds thanks to Britain’s efforts’ Mitchell uses positive effects of foreign aid to lay out the foundations of his argument that foreign aid is actually being put to practical use. He then uses examples to show how UK taxpayers also benefit hugely from giving aid. Mitchell emphasises that foreign aid is key in the development of Great Britain and that ‘investment’ is ‘sought to generate a return for Britain’.

The Daily Mail uses a more negative approach is the increase of foreign aid that was promised by David Cameron. By labelling the situation a ‘foreign aid madness’ and using phrases such as ‘cash-strapped’ and ‘soft touch’, the headline of the article immediately presents its views in very few words.  By comparing the UK to other (richer) countries, and comparing figures of aid, Chapman is able to convey the image of Great Britain spending money it doesn’t have, especially during times of austerity.

My third source, although bound to be very biased conveys an even stronger argument on why foreign aid is a problem for citizens. Using images to convey the prime minister as taking away valuable tax money, the use of propaganda immediately sways certain viewers, especially those who would typically visit the ‘British Patriots Society’. By using arguments coming from both the political right and left, the BPS is able to convey their argument from different perspectives of politics and society, useful in helping them gain more supporters from a wider audience.

All the sources I have used seem to collectively be very one-sided. Andrew Mitchell, is a former international development secretary who throughout his article, stresses the importance of giving aid to foreign countries.  The Daily Mail article uses sources from various political figures who actively disagree with the increase of foreign aid spending. The majority of the article is made up of quotations from various sources, however all with the same point of view, making the article seem less objective. The views put forward by the BPS only display their own party’s point of view and uses simple language and quick points to convey their argument. With no other supporting sources, this article would not be considered balanced at all.

I believe that my findings have helped me understand the issue of foreign aid spending more than before, as I never believed it was an issue that was ever present within the UK government. Although I have come to a conclusion that aid to indeed a helpful factor for Great Britain as well as others, the articles I looked at made me question whether, during our economic climate if the percentage going outwards should be as high as it is. I would think that more information on previous years of aid and the visible impact it has made worldwide, would make this argument more useful.