April 27th, 2016
As with all news sources, bias will always occur in any topic. Bias can come in any form, whether it’s location bias or some sort of personal bias. The topic on hand sparked lots of anger throughout the communities across the pond from us.
The situation interested news sources in the UK and United States alike, so it’s important to analyze the way each article portrays the situation at hand. I will try to decipher why each article discusses the situation the way it does and try to discuss why it is like that.
The articles will be listed in no particular way. On top of trying to figure out why the articles are the way they are, I will also analyze whether or not the article focuses on just the reports, or the actual implications of the problems are hand.
The title of this article is a partial quote from the report that the article discusses. The article focuses on two Jewish schools in London, but separates them when discussing the report. The Telegraph also gives both of the schools equal lengths in the article. This sort of un-bias is because the news source is from the UK, so both schools are viewed as equal importance. However, the article solely focuses on what the Ofsted report says. They don’t focus at all about the implications of what is stated in the report. I think the reason for this is that because the schools are in the same country as The Telegraph, they wanted to keep it as unbiased as possible and just focus on the report.
This article goes much more in-depth than the previous article. Both schools are mentioned, however, they are basically combined. These shows that they don’t see the schools are necessarily different, but one in the same. Because this article is from the US, they don’t see these schools as completely different, they only see them as two schools with problems. This article also goes more in depth with the Ofsted report, which then focuses more on the implications of the problems going on at the school. The reason for this could be that because this article is not focused in the US, this could be the first time this problem has become apparent. This then puts a bias on this article, mostly because this does not take place in the US, so there’s a natural bias towards this situation.
New York Times:
This article is a shortened summary of the article from The Guardian. The title is different, however, and focuses on the fact that the schools are “under fire”. Both schools are mentioned as well in this article. While this article is just a summary of another article, this one definitely focuses on all of the very negative issues coming from the report. This one also focuses more on
the gender role differences of the schools. This shows the differences between the articles and what each view as more important. This article views the negative implications of the gender roles more than others, showing the bias that this article has towards the situation.
This article comes from the UK, so there is already definitely a different sort of bias. What makes this one the most different from the other articles is that this one brings in two other schools that are not previously mentioned. The difference with this article is that the main two schools that are consistently mentioned don’t talk about the implications of the report. The other two schools that are mentioned in this article are focused on the implications of the report. I think this is because this article goes much more in-depth about each school, probably because this occurs in the same country. Focusing on the report, this article discusses the criticisms about the students’ learning capabilities and what they’ll be like in the real world. This shows what this article views as important coming from the Ofsted report.
By just looking at the title, it seems that this article will just solely focus on the fact that the schools are teaching very limited views on women. Looking deeper into the article, it is not the only case. This article, which is also from the UK, focuses on all aspects of the Ofsted report, and includes implications of why the situation is not good. The article still focuses on the two main schools mentioned in all the articles, but it seems to combine the schools as one. However, it does single out one school for its’ teachings of sexual assault. The fact that this article doesn’t really separate the schools as two shows that even though this article is from the same country where the schools are, they don’t really pity the situation and therefore don’t see much of a point in separating the schools. This article is a bit different as well too, because this article brings in other opinions instead of solely focusing on the Ofsted report. Bringing in extra resources shows that this article is wanting to go way more in-depth and hit on all parts of the situation. This also shows that this article is trying to be as unbiased as possible because it doesn’t just have the report to focus on; they have multiple other sources to keep a good balance of opinions.
The title of this article is very similar to the title of the Huffington Post, however, there is one difference. This article, also based in the UK, only focuses on one school. There are a number of reasons why this could be, but I think this could be because the school is close to where this news outlet is located, or the writer could have only knowledge of just this school. Because this article just focuses on one school, that means it goes way deeper into the Ofsted report, covering all points of it. Being able to go more in-depth to the report allows the reader to really get a handle on the situation at hand and why it’s such an important situation. This article also ends with a new development, which is the fact that they talked about the Independent School Standards. Adding this on the end really adds to the importance of the situation and is crucial to the article since it only talks about one of the two schools.
News Daily Times:
The title of this article shows that the main focus of it is the issue of education. This article talks about both schools from the report, but in a pretty different way. Even though both schools are mentioned, the main focus is only on one of these schools. This could be because this school, has the most issues, or it’s just the most well known. Regardless, this article focuses on many of the harsh criticisms of the report. This article also brings in extra opinions like a previous article. This adds to the negativity of the situation, which gives the readers an even better idea of how serious this issue is. While some of the articles focus on the gender equality issues from the school, this one generally focuses on the education aspects of the report, and the fact that the schools are considered inadequate. This article also adds on a different issue on the end of the article. It then turns the negativity back onto Ofsted. This interesting development shows that the article is not biased, because it also shows the possible faults of the Ofsted reports.
This UK based article discusses quite a bit, considering it’s a shorter article. This article similarly only focuses on one of the two schools discussed. The article is also written a bit differently than previous articles. To mention each point, the article utilizes bullet points. This style shows that the article doesn’t really put an importance on any of the topics of the Ofsted report. Because the article doesn’t put a bias on the most important issue of the report. The article also describes what the purpose of the report is, which gives readers a sense of why the inspectors were at the school in the first place. This article is also a UK based one, however, there are more similarities with the US based articles and this one. There is not a bias towards the fact that the school is from the same country, but there is a bias from the report about the school. The article allows readers to get a nearly unbiased look at the situation at hand and be able to point out the different parts of the report.