Mass Media Communication:
News report comparison exercise
(Please note that these materials are available for download from
www.grammatics.com/media – so that you can get at electronic versions of the texts and
won’t need to type them into your wordprocessor yourself )
Questions for text sets 1, 2, and 3
Compare and contrast the depictions, representations and interpretations provided by the two
reports included in the text set to which you have been assigned.
Provide findings (with detailed text analysis by way of support) on the following:
1. Similarities and differences in the informational organization of the text (what
informational themes and sub-themes are addressed in the report; are there any themes
present in one report which are absent from the other; where do these themes occur in
opening headline/lead and then in the body of the report and how do the two reports
compare in this regard; which themes are made more prominent and which less
2. How do the two reports compare in terms of the use they make of material which is
attributed to outside sources? Do they include similar or different quoted material?. Do
they quote the same or different sources? Do they quote them in similar proportions? Are
they similar or different in the ways in which they position the reader to view these
sources (for example as more or as less reliable.)? If so, how is this done (for example via
positioning in the text, via the use of particular quoting verbs, by the use of implicit or
explicit evaluation, and so on.)
Overall, based on the consideration of such questions, can the use the each text makes of
attributed material be seen as positioning the reader to favour a particular point of view or
can it be seen as simply reporting the views of others and leaving it up to the reader to
3. Does the reporter on their own behalf employ language which is explicitly evaluative
(indicating a positive or negative viewpoint.) If so, with what aspects of the issue are these
evaluations concerned and what is the nature of this evaluation? Does the writer do lot of
these explicit evaluation or is it only in passing. Just how explicitly subjective or
personalized does the author’s voice sound as a consequence of any such explicit
4. Does the reporter construct the text so that it is in some way indirectly or implicitly
evaluative. Identify all the key points in the text where such indirect evaluation occurs and
explain how it works (what are the mechanisms by which the reader is positioned to make
evaluative inferences?). To what communicative, rhetorical or ideological ends does such
evaluation seem to be directed? To what degree do these indirect evaluations interact with
the more explicitly evaluative aspects of the text?
5. Based on these analyses, reach some conclusions about the overall evaluative or
ideological orientation of the two texts. Do they advance a particular point of view. Do
they seem to be naturalizing any particular set out assumptions about the way the world is
or ought to be?
Text set 1
Text A: Daily Mail, September 16, 2004, page 2
Headline: Five who rocked the cradle of democracy
BYLINE: DAVID HUGHES; MICHAEL SEAMARK
Body: IT was the day when the cradle of our democracy was invaded for the first time in 350
A day when, for the second time in a week, Britain's security forces were made a laughing
stock around the world.
But, more than anything, it was the day when the bitter divisions between town and country
that have marked Blair's Britain exploded into violence and bloodshed.
The repercussions of yesterday's Battle of Westminster will be felt up to and beyond the next
General Election and may leave Mr Blair bitterly regretting that he belatedly grasped the
nettle of a hunting ban to distract his simmering MPs from the Iraqi debacle.
Armed police last night ringed the Commons after the storming of the very heart of
Parliament by five anti-ban protesters.
The invaders passed within yards of Mr Blair's office and ended up face-to-face with
Ministers and MPs debating on the floor of the chamber.
The dramatic goings on inside the Commons were matched by bitter clashes outside.
Furious at the Government's decision to railroad the Bill banning hunting through
Parliament, an army of Middle Englanders rose up to be confronted by baton-wielding police.
The result was outrage, bloodshed and defiance.
Such was the Prime Minister's disdain for the issue that he did not even bother to vote, while
only a handful of MPs dragged themselves into the chamber to listen to the arguments of the
Bill's opponents. In the end, MPs decided by a majority of 190 to outlaw hunting with dogs.
A move to delay implementing the ban until July 2006 was backed by a majority of 327.
Former Labour minister Kate Hoey last night condemned the Government for forcing through
the ban and predicted that the issue could become the party's 'poll tax'.
'I'm personally ashamed that a Labour government is conniving in this triumph of prejudice,'
she told MPs. 'I thought the Labour Party stood for a tolerant and inclusive society.'
Condemning the measure as 'illiberal', she said similar intolerance of minority interests had
been seen in some of the 'worst regimes in the world'.
Thousands of decent law-abiding people would lose their livelihoods due to the 'bigoted'
attitude of a small number of Labour MPs.
Police and protesters were locked in a bitter dispute over who was to blame for the ugly
clashes in Parliament Square.
Senior Scotland Yard officers insisted they took 'proportionate' action in the face of
provocation from part of the 10,000 crowd.
But angry protesters claimed they were attacked by massed lines of riot police.
The Prime Minister, who was not in the Commons when the protesters invaded, held urgent
talks with Home Secretary David Blunkett about the stunning incident in the House which
was captured live on television and beamed around the world.
Eight protesters infiltrated the Commons, although three failed to reach the chamber.
According to Countryside Alliance sources, those arrested included England polo player
Luke Tomlinson, a close friend of Princes William and Harry, and Roxy Music singer Bryan
Ferry's son Otis.
The protesters, who are believed to have had 'inside help' in obtaining access to the most
highly-restricted parts of Parliament, charged into the chamber yelling abuse and jabbing
their fingers at Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael, who slumped back in his seat in shock.
They were eventually bundled to the ground and dragged out by Commons attendants dressed
in their traditional black tailcoat and white tie.
The protesters clearly had detailed knowledge of the innermost recesses of the Palace of
Some wearing hard hats and contractors' jackets and others dressed in suits, they made their
way along the secondfloor Committee Corridor where they would not have looked out of
place because it is being renovated.
They then walked through a security door where the electronic swipe-card lock is broken,
removed their disguises, climbed down two flights of stairs, and charged into the Commons
The Speaker Michael Martin said he was 'gravely concerned' about the incident and promised
to report back to MPs after discussing security with the Serjeant-at-Arms .
The Bill was rushed through the Commons in a single day and the Government has made
clear that if the Lords throw it out, the Parliament Act will be invoked to ensure that it
Blair the absentee
TONY BLAIR'S contemptuous decision not to bother to vote on the issue only added to the
fury of his opponents.
Tim Yeo, the Tory environment spokesman, denounced it as 'an act of utter cynicism,
showing contempt to Parliament and to those who are concerned about this'.
Despite the sound and the fury leading up to the crucial debate, only 19 Labour backbenchers
turned up for the opening, including prominent anti-hunt MPs such as Tony Banks and
Gerald Kaufman. There was similar apathy on the opposition benches, with a mere 12 Tories
and five LibDems.
But as the protest outside moved into the Chamber, so did the MPs and by 5.30pm more than
500 were pouring through the division lobbies.
The last invasion
THE storming of the Commons chamber was described last night as the most serious security
breach at Westminster since the 17th century.
Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell said: 'Not since Charles I came to this House has there been such
an invasion.' King Charles marched into the House in January 1642 to try to seize five MPs
who were attempting to reform the constitution and remove his control over the army.
He got as far as the floor of the chamber but Speaker William Lenthall refused to tell him
where the MPs were hiding.
Monarchs and members of the public have been banned from entering the floor of the House
The Guardian – September 16, 2004, page 1
HEADLINE: Invasion of the Commons: Five protestors storm the chamber * Blunkett calls
for clampdown *Ban on hunting goes ahead
BYLINE: Patrick Wintour and Peter Hetherington
Ministers were last night considering a ban on demonstrations in Parliament Square and the
introduction of armed police to guard the doors of the House of Commons in the wake of the
most flagrant breach of parliamentary security in living memory.
Five protesters o members of the Countryside Alliance o with elaborate inside knowledge of
the layout of the Commons, stormed the floor of the chamber at 4.20pm yesterday. The
intruders had evaded armed police and footmen in tights by wearing construction suits and
using back stairs.
The invasion forced a 20- minute suspension of proceedings as stunned MPs assessed the
violation of democratic debate.
But the protest failed to stop mainly Labour MPs forcing through in one day a bill banning
hunting. The vote was 356 to 166 at the bill's second reading. Mr Blair, a previous opponent
of fox hunting, did not vote.
In the wake of the security lapse, the leader of the Commons, Peter Hain, along with Mr
Blunkett, were at meetings last night reviving demands that armed policemen are posted at
the six doors leading to the Commons chamber, instead of unarmed badge messengers in
Mr Hain is determined to preserve the right of democratic protest within Parliament Square.
But both men agree that there should be a powerful single head of security reporting directly
to the Serjeant at Arms, Sir Michael Cummins, and his opposite number in the Lords, Black
The two cabinet ministers had sought but failed to secure the changes following a previous
review after flour was thrown on the prime minister from the public gallery. One source
blamed “the establishment that runs this building, especially the Serjeant at Arms".
In an extraordinary day outside the Commons, a minority among thousands of noisy rural
protesters in Parliament Square battled with truncheon- wielding police. At one point the
Michael Martin, peered through the gates of parliament to see if the police could hold the
line, and prevent a mass invasion of democracy. The Countryside Alliance's chairman, John
Jackson, said: “I condemn these lawless activities which are selfish and self-indulgent.
However appalling the behaviour of Alun Michael, people should not allow themselves to be
provoked into activities of this kind which can only harm the cause for which thousands of
their fellows are demonstrating peacefully".
Conservative MPs also condemned the violence unequivocally.
Earlier Mr Michael, who has travelled the country putting the case for a compromise solution
involving the regulation of hunts under a strict code, faced protests from Tory and some
Labour MPs over the use of the Parliament Act to bypass the House of Lords.
He told them that it had become clear “that the two sides are so polarised that it's impossible
to deal with in that way . . . this issue has been taking up Parliament's time year after year and
it's an issue that must be brought to a conclusion".
Peers now have just 30 days to decide whether to accept the will of the Commons or see the
measure forced onto the statute book without their consent by use of the Parliament Act.
With the Countryside Alliance intent on taking legal action against the government on the
grounds that use of the Parliament Act to fast-track legislation breaches the European
convention on human rights, Mr Michael said ministers were confident any attempt to invoke
the convention would fail.
The Tories rural affairs spokesman, Oliver Heald, accused the government of abusing its
executive power by using draconian powers “in order to crush an aspect of freedom in rural
He accused ministers of indecision over the past seven years.
“They've started and checked, they've jinked and dived, they've been up hill and down dale N
now they say it's a matter of such serious importance it must be dealt with now."
At question time in the Commons, Michael Howard taunted the prime minister, accusing him
of making hunting a priority above issues of more pressing importance. “When are you
going to get to
grips with the problems people really care about?" he roared.
Several Labour backbenchers were also critical. Barry Sheerman criticised bypassing the
Lords: “Surely this is hardly the issue to use the Parliament Act in order to overrule not only
the House of Lords but also to steam roller this through against a very large minority that
don't want it."
But the veteran leftwinger Dennis Skinner accused opponents of the bill of “whinging and
whining You tell the House of Lords to go to hell and that we'll carry the bill."
Text set 2
[From the News Pages of the Jerusalem Post]
Blair unveils damning dossier on Saddam
1. LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday warned of the urgent need to
act after the publication of a 50-page British intelligence dossier of evidence on Iraq's
continuing determination to acquire weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.
2. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has a growing arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, and plans to use them, Blair said, adding that he is trying to develop nuclear
3. He told a special session of Parliament that his priority is to get UN inspectors back
into Iraq. But he repeatedly expressed enthusiasm for the US goal of "regime change" in
4. "Iraq, the region, and the whole world would be better off" without Saddam, said
Blair, after releasing the long- awaited dossier, which declared Saddam has weapons of
mass destruction ready to be used within 45 minutes of an order to fight.
5. "There is no way that this man, in this region above all regions, could begin a conflict
using such weapons and the consequences not engulf the whole world," Blair told a
packed House of Commons.
6. While the dossier did not offer dramatic new disclosures, it did point out that Saddam
now possesses some 20 - rather than 12 - long- range missiles, capable of reaching Israel
with non-conventional payloads.
7. It also reveals that Iraqi engineers are seeking to convert former military aircraft to
pilotless drones capable of spraying chemical or biological agents.
8. Blair said the dossier demonstrated conclusively that Iraq's program for developing
weapons of mass destruction is "active, detailed, and growing." The dossier claims Iraq
9. *Continued its production of chemical and biological agents.
10. *Drawn up military plans for deploying chemical and biological weapons.
11. *Attempted to acquire material and technology to produce nuclear weapons from
unnamed African sources.
12. *Started developing ballistic missiles with a range of more than 1,000 km.
13. *Developed new methods for concealing equipment and documentation from
14. Releasing the dossier, based in part on previously classified material, Blair said it was
"unprecedented for the government to publish this kind of document. But in the light of
the debate about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, I wanted to share with the British
public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK
15. Effectively declaring the policy of containment dead, Blair said the UN weapons
inspectors must be allowed to return to Iraq "to do their job properly," or the international
community "will have to act."
16. Baghdad rejected the British analysis, which also said Iraq is trying to extend the
range of its ballistic missiles. "The British prime minister is serving the campaign of lies
led by Zionists against Iraq. Blair is part of this misleading campaign," Culture Minister
Hammed Youssef Hammadi said.
17. In Cairo, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri denied that Iraq has or is developing
weapons of mass destruction, and said Blair was simply trying to justify a military attack
18. In Denmark, where European and Asian leaders were meeting, French President
Jacques Chirac and Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji both said the UN Security
Council must play a vital role in the crisis.
19. "I do not think at all that war is unavoidable," Chirac said, adding that UN weapons
inspectors must be allowed to find out what Saddam has.
20. "Any military attack on Iraq that does not have the blessing of the Security Council
"will lead to severe consequences," Zhu said.
21. But the White House called the dossier "frightening" and praised Blair for his strong
defense of the US-led efforts against Saddam. "We don't trust this man, and that's what
the Blair report showed today," President George W. Bush said.
22. "Prime Minister Blair, first of all, is a very strong leader, and I admire his willingness
to tell the truth and to lead. Secondly, he continues to make the case, like we make the
case, that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace," Bush told reporters.
23. "I again call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution holding this man to
account. And if they're unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act, because
we believe in peace; we want to keep the peace. We don't trust this man and that's what
the Blair report showed today," he added.
24. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, responding to critics who claimed there was
nothing new in the dossier, said: "I think there was new information in there, particularly
about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and
chemical weapons triggered to be launched. There was new information in there about
Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations; that was new
26. Left-wing lawmakers said the dossier provided little new information and remained
unconvinced of the need for war.
27. "Tony Blair will have to do better than this if he wants to convince the British public
to go to war," said Labor MP Diane Abbott.
28. The government report said that Saddam attaches great importance to weapons of
mass destruction as the basis of Iraq's regional power.
29. "He is ready to use them, including against his own population, and is determined to
retain them, in breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions," it said.
30. It provided a detailed history of Iraq's weapons program and an assessment of its
current capabilities, based on British and allied intelligence.
31. However, Maj. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said the dossier
"does not produce any convincing evidence, or any killer fact, that says that Saddam
Hussein has to be taken out straight away."
32. "What it does do is produce very convincing evidence that the weapons inspectors
have to be pushed back into Iraq very quickly," he said.
33. The London-based Iraqi National Congress said the government dossier backed up
reports from defectors of Saddam's regime that the Iraqi leader poses a serious and current
[From the Mirror]
BLAIR'S DOSSIER DAMNS HIM
Sep 25 2002
By James Hardy in London and Richard Wallace in New York
TONY Blair was greeted with near-silence from his own MPs yesterday as he set out his case
for a possible war with Iraq - but got a glowing tribute from President Bush.
His statement to a recalled House of Commons followed the publication of a 50-page dossier
on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme.
Mr Blair told MPs: "We know that diplomacy, not backed by the threat of force, has never
worked with dictators and never will.
"The threat of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction is not American or British
propaganda. The history and the present threat are real."
Mr Blair vowed to work through the UN, but repeatedly ducked questions about what would
happen if it failed to back military action.
In the US, President Bush shrugged off criticism that the the dossier - compiled by Britain's
intelligence agencies - revealed no hard evidence.
Bush said: "Prime Minister Blair is a very strong leader and I admire his willingness to tell
the truth and to lead. He has continued to make the case, like we make the case, that
Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Mr Blair's document "frightening in terms of
Iraq's intentions and abilities to acquire weapons".
As the many Labour doubters remained unconvinced, MP Jim Sheridan told the PM: "If you
are to lead us into conflict with Iraq, it must be for the right reasons and not as a diversion
from domestic politics in America."
The Premier admitted there was no proof that Saddam was plotting to use his deadly arsenal
against any nation - let alone Britain or the US.
His statement also suggested the Iraqi dictator was still a long way off acquiring nuclear
The dossier said that the nation defeated in the 1991 Gulf War was continuing to produce
chemical and biological agents. Some could be deployed within 45 minutes of the order
The document also said Iraq was developing mobile laboratories for military use, seeking
uranium from Africa, and retaining missiles for chemical or biological warheads.
Mr Blair, addressing MPs as 3,000 anti-war demonstrators protested outside Parliament, said:
"Our case is simply this - not that we take military action come what may, but that the case
for ensuring Iraqi disarmament, as the UN has stipulated, is overwhelming."
It was the same demand that had been made for 11 years and that Saddam had rejected.
Mr Blair added: "I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next, that he
will use his weapons.
"But I can say that if the international community having made the call for disarmament, now
at the point of decision, shrugs its shoulders and walks away, he will draw the conclusion
dictators faced with a weakening will always draw - that the international community will
talk but not act, will use diplomacy but not force."
Mr Blair dodged challenges over whether Britain would support "regime change" - the stated
US aim - in defiance of the UN Charter.
"One thing I find odd," he said, "is people who find the notion of regime change in Iraq is
somehow undesirable - regime change would be a wonderful thing."
Former cabinet minister Chris Smith said Britain's cause should lie, not with a decision to
deploy force inspired by the US alone, but "with the international community and the
Leading Labour critic George Galloway said the British people had got Mr Bush "just about
right", as "not a man that we would want to be at the wheel of the car as we drive along the
edge of a cliff with ourselves sitting in the back seat".
Muslim Labour MPs said the only way to stability in the Middle East was also to tackle
Israel's refusal to heed UN resolutions.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy, urging a vote on any military action, warned against
signing up to "American unilateralism".
In Baghdad, presidential adviser Amir al-Saadi called the dossier "a hotchpotch of half-truths,
lies, short-sighted and naive allegation".
The main opposition group to Saddam - the London-based Iraqi National Congress - backed
Mr Blair and said it had helped provide information for the dossier.
France's President Chirac said the document was "hard proof" of the need for fresh
inspections, but not a licence for war.
Britain's ambassador in Russia Sir Roderic Lyne outlined the dossier to Moscow, then said:
"Yes, our positions are converging."
China warned of the "severe consequences" of a go-it-alone attack.
In the US, beaten Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore said the chaos following a victory
over Iraq "could easily pose a far greater danger to the US than does Saddam".
Text set 3
Text A (Daily Mail)
£2000,000 STRESS PAY-OUT TO GIPSY WARDEN
The £2000,000 gipsy
1. A GIPSY won a record £200,000 compensation for stress he suffered as the warden of
a travellers’ site.
2. The payout, to be footed by the taxpayers, was more than 20 times Randy Ingram’s
3. Critics denounced it as another sign of compensation cultural gone mad.
4. Mr Ingram, 41, says he suffered a catalogue of abuse, including being shot at and
having a dog set on him.
5. He and the Unison union, which backed the claim, say he has been unable to work
since quitting on health grounds in September 1997, the third warden at the site to do
6. But the award angered Mr Ingram’s neighbours near Worcestershire, where he lives
with his wife and four children in two caravans, despite being refused planning
permission for a mobile home.
7. Paul Sparrow, chairman of the residents’ association said: ‘This man has taken
advantage of the laws of society for this massive payout, but when the laws of society
are against him he won’t budge.
8. The payout is the biggest ever awarded in the British courts for stress at work. It
covers the loss of past and future earnings and medical expenses.
9. Mr Ingram says he still needs a daily cocktail of prescribed medication.
10. Recent figures showed that unions brought 783 cases against employers for stress-
related illness last year, 70 per cent up on the previous 12 months.
11. Ruth Lea, head of the policy unit at the Institute of Directors, said. 'When people see
sums like this being paid out it inevitably encourages others to come forward. This is
the maelstrom we are in.'
12. Stress consultant Angela Patmore said: 'There is a positive incentive now to claim
damages because of stress. But, in effect what they are suffering from is the fact that
they lack coping skills and good support from their management. This is going for
gold. It's a sort of lottery.'
13. Mr Ingram managed gipsy sites for Wychavon District Council for two years until the
work was transferred to the county council in 1995.
14. He took, over responsibility for several other caravan sites, including one at Lower
Heath, Kidderminster, which had a history of problems' His union, which hailed the
payout as a major triumph, accused the council of failing to back him in his £8,700 a
year post and undermining his authority as a result.
15. Regional officer Peter Fennell said that, despite letters from the union, the council
failed to provide support for their staff when they came into conflict with gipsy
16. He said: 'The council were not prepared to take sufficient strong action against the
17. 'When steps were taken to evict anti- social families, or refuse entry to known
troublemakers, decisions taken by the wardens were overruled by council managers.
'When I first met Mr Ingram he was an intelligent, articulate man, but he eventually
suffered a complete breakdown in June 1997'
18. Mr Fennell said seven out of ten wardens at the site had been off work with stress. Last
week Unison won a payout of £14,500 for one who quit on health grounds.
19. A former senior site officer with the council, who declined to be named, said some of
Mr Ingram's problems arose because he was a gipsy himself. He said that on one
occasions Mr Ingram was shot at and, the shots were bouncing off gas bottles
surrounding the site office.
20. The retired officer said he had also token time off work through stress after being
physically and verbally abuses by travellers and having his car damaged.
21. After the settlement was announced at Birmingham County Court, Mr Ingram told
reporters that he was taking 17 pills a day because of stress, and attending hospital
twice a week for therapy sessions.
22. He said, 'The council have a lot to answer for. They have made me very ill with stress
and depression and my home life has suffered as a result.
23. 'The council's admission of guilt shows how badly they have treated me. I have been in
hospital twice and still need medication and painkillers to carry on.
24. 'I wish 1 could say I will be better by tomorrow but that is just not going to happen.'
25. Worcestershire Council has carried out its own inquiry into the case and changed the
way the sites are run.
26. The total payout of £203,432 was well above the previous record, the £175,000 paid
by Northumberland County Council to social worker John Walker in 1996.
27. Mr Ingram refused to be drawn on what he planned to do with the money but said he
had no plans to move into a house. ‘I am part of the gypsy community,’ he said. ‘I
have always lived in a caravan and I don’t think I will be changing my lifestyle.’
28. Mr Ingram moved into the Worcester village of Aldington, near Evesham, last
29. He set up home with his family in two caravans in a field a the end of a muddy track.
The family have named the site Romero Fields.
30. Their arrival has met fierce opposition from locals, who are upset that the first sight
greeting visitors to the village is a pair of old caravans in a muddy field.
31. Villagers say an application by Mr Ingram for planning permission to keep a mobile
home in his field was rejected last year. A subsequent public inquiry again rejected his
32. Residents’ leader Mr Sparrow, a 63-year-old retired civil engineer, said: ‘The general
feeling is one of astonishment that he has received this amount of money.
33. ‘Another thing that amazes us is that, for a man of such ill health, he has done a lot of
work in the field. He has planted trees, erected fenced, painted and generally been seen
doing hard physical work. Our wish is sincerely that he goes.
£203,000 award for stress at Gypsy site
A former warden at a Gypsy site yesterday won a record £203,000 in damages for Personal
injury caused by work related stress.
Randy Ingram suffered a breakdown and has been unable to work for three years after he was
shot at and physically abused.
Mr ingram, who is a Gypsy, suffered the trauma while trying to enforce licensing laws. He
had to take up to 17 tablets a day and attend hospital twice a week for therapy.
Worcestershire county council settled out of court and admitted liability.
Mr Ingram, a father of four, took over responsibility for the Lower Heath site, near
Kidderminster, which had a track record of problems. Out of 10 wardens employed by the
council, seven are off work because of stress. Another warden has received £14,500 after
Mr Ingram began his £8,700 a year job in 1993 and his responsibilities were to allocate
pitches and collect rent as part of enforcing licensing laws.
"The council has a lot to answer for," said Mr Ingram. "They have made me very ill with
stress and depression and my home life has suffered as a result, 1 have been in hospital twice
and still need medication and painkillers to carry on.
Unison, which supported Mr Ingram, said the ease was one of the most extreme examples of
stress the union had dealt with. Its regional officer Peter Fennell said Mi Ingram’s authority
was under. mined at sites because the council turned a blind eye when the rules the warden.,
were supposed to enforce were broken.
Mr Fennell commented: "The council appeared to take the side of the Gypsies. They were not
prepared to take sufficient strong action against the troublesome families. This was very
difficult for the wardens."
Mr Fennell said the majority of the families were decent' people, but there were anti-social
elements. "Some of the Gypsies were acting with impunity because they knew whatever they
did, they were not going to be brought to book by the council.
A former site officer with the council, who declined to be named, said some of Mr Ingram’s
problems arose because he was a Gypsy himself.
Mr Ingram added that he and his family would continue living in a caravan on. a site for
Gypsies: "I am part of the Gypsy community, I have always lived in a caravan.
"The council's admission of guilt shows how badly they' have treated me."
A former senior site officer with the council said Mr Ingram had been shot at in the site
office, and bullets had ricocheted off gas bottles surrounding the office.
Recent figures showed that unions took 783 legal cases against employers for stress related
illness last year, 70% up on the previous 12 months.
In a statement Worcestershire county council said. "These are the only successful stress
claims against the council which show we are doing all we can to support staff." A council
spokesman, Chris Carter, said that the case had arisen when Mr Ingram worked for the old
Hereford and Worcester county council. ','The new county council has improve procedures
by giving Gypsy liaison staff more support. These new measures, have scooped us a top
national award for the Gypsy liaison teams work."
The settlement was the third high-profile stress case brought by Unison. In 1994 a social
worker John Walker was awarded an out-of-court settlement of £175,000 against
Northumberland county council, and last year housing officer Beverley Lancaster was
awarded damages of around £65,000 by a judge after Birmingham city council admitted
liability for personal injury caused by stress.
Text set 4.
(consider the following question, not those set out above.)
Below you will find two editorial/comment pieces which adopt diametrically opposed
Comment piece 1. from the comment pages, April 24, 2000]
1. THE LIBERATION OF ELIAN GONZALEZ
2. Well done, Ms. Reno.
3. With lightning speed, requisite force and no physical harm to anyone, federal agents
Saturday ended one of the most bizarre, arrogant floutings of the law in recent memory.
4. They liberated young Elian Gonzalez from his Miami relatives and returned him to his
5. They may also have begun to liberate American policy toward Cuba from the perverse
stranglehold of the fanatics who have possessed it for decades and who seem to feel that
no hurt is too great to inflict on the Cuban people in the name of punishing Fidel Castro.
6. That last development, if true, can only be to the good--for this country and, ultimately,
7. The Elian episode has preoccupied this nation and Ms. Reno far longer than its intrinsic
importance or difficulty ever could have justified.
8. Within days after his Thanksgiving rescue from the shipwreck in which his mother and a
group of other Cuban refugees died, the boy should have been returned to his father, who
by all accounts had been loving, involved in his upbringing and not in the least abusive.
9. Instead he became the telegenic pawn of his Miami relatives and that city's Cuban exile
community, a club with which to batter the justly despised Castro.
10. Ultimately, this produced a pathetic irony:
11. The United States, the country in which children are supposed to exist for their own and
their families' pleasures and not for the uses of the state, the party, the movement or the
"cause," tolerated Elian's involuntary separation from his father--for the sake of the anti-
12. That is the outrage to which Ms. Reno, belatedly, put an end on Saturday.
Comment Piece 2
[1. Miami Herald; comment pages - April 23/2000]
Feds declined to exhaust all options
By Liz Balmaseda
``When all efforts failed.''
That was the official disclaimer.
That was President Clinton's shrug for the violent pre-dawn raid and ransack of the house
where Elian Gonzalez has lived with his Miami relatives since his November rescue at sea.
``The law has been upheld,'' Clinton said, adding he believed removing the child by force was
the right thing to do.
If the president believes the thug display by armed federal agents against a horrified 6-year-
old child constitutes the right thing to do, then we must ask him this: What country do you
govern, sir? Is it the United States or is it Cuba?
In pursuit of Elian, submachine gun-pointing border agents stormed the Gonzalez family
house, smashing through a door, blasting pepper spray, even wrecking the child's bed frame.
The peaceful, orderly transfer Attorney General Janet Reno had promised the American
people played like a home invasion, with death threats hurled and guns pointed to heads.
``Give me the f---ing boy or I'll shoot,'' an agent thundered at Elian's relatives, who pleaded
with the armed officials not to harm the child.
Let's freeze this frame, as did Associated Press photographer Alan Diaz, who captured the
image that exposes the morning's brutality: a federal agent pointing a gun toward a terrified
Elian as the boy cried in the arms of one of his sea rescuers, Donato Dalrymple.
Let's freeze this image and examine who is holding the gun near the child's chest. It is not
Elian's cousin, Marisleysis Gonzalez, or any of his other relatives. It is not any of the exiles
who have rallied and prayed outside his home.
Later in the day there would be references to protests in the streets of Miami. But the most
violent images were the ones reserved for Elian's eyes, as he screamed ``I don't want to go!''
What has Janet Reno done in the name of reunification? What was the point in her visiting
Miami to work out an acceptable transfer?
Are we to believe that ripping the boy out of his house at 5 a.m. was the only course of
action, or even that ``all efforts failed?''
Family attorneys and community leaders worked deep into the night, brokering an agreement
to take Elian, in the company of his closest relatives, to a neutral place where he could reunite
with his father. They believed they had reached an accord with Reno, when, after a tense lull,
the agents stormed the house.
``What is this, Berkeley 1968?'' demanded Pedro Freyre, the chairman of the anti-defamation
group Facts About Cuban Exiles and one of the community figures involved in working out
the futile accord.
``The administration never had any intention of reuniting this family. Never,'' concluded the
Cuban American National Foundation's Jorge Mas Santos, who arrived at the house minutes
after Elian was snatched. As he surveyed the room where Elian slept, he was struck by a
poignant detail: The boy had hung his Easter clothes, a tiny guayabera and shorts, on the
Indeed it seems as if the administration had no intention of exhausting ``all efforts.''
From the beginning, Reno and the Immigration and Naturalization Service dismissed the
most logical scenario -- to compel Juan Miguel Gonzalez to ditch his Cuban government
shadows and travel to the side of his son. Instead, the burden of travel was placed upon Elian,
the boy who lost his mother during the voyage from Cuba.
Even when it became clear that the father was a virtual ward of the Castro government, the
INS did not budge. It took a 16-page ruling from a federal appeals court in Atlanta on
Wednesday to ensure that Elian, the refugee boy rescued on Thanksgiving Day, would not be
delivered to the hands of the Cuban government without his day in court.
As Miami took in the shock of Saturday's raid, we contemplated the first photographs of the
boy and his father. The pictures depict a smiling Elian. We can only hope they reflect the
love he feels for his father and his baby brother.
Back in Miami, the community that weeps for Elian should be comforted by that smile.
Despite every effort made to portray us as rabid family-wreckers, many of us still hold firm
what we have always wished for Elian -- that he may be surrounded by the love of his family,
not the maneuvers of any government.
Juan Miguel Gonzalez stayed away and his son paid for it on Saturday morning.
We can only pray that their reunification will erase the trauma of the brutal force Elian
witnessed as he was dragged from his home, as if he were a fugitive.
Now consider the following news reporting the light of these two comment pieces. To what
degree can it be seen as s supporting either the positive or negative viewpoint as expressed in
these two reports. Or do you consider it to be ‘impartial’.
In addressed this question, consider the following issues.
1. The organization of informational themes in the news report and whether this organization
positions the reader to adopt a particular view with respect to the events being described.
2. The use of material attributed material and whether the reader the reader is positioned to
view this in a particular way.
3. The use of any explicitly evaluative language by the writer. If there is any, to how
frequently does it occur and what position or positions does it support?
4. The use of any implicitly evaluative language (identify any of this and explain the
mechanisms by which it operates to position the reader to take a negative or positive
viewpoint) If there is any, to how frequently does it occur and what position or positions does
New Report for analysis - from the news pages
RAID RETURNS ELIAN TO FATHER
Street protests end; strike called for Tuesday
BY MANNY GARCIA, CAROLYN SALAZAR AND ANDRES VIGLUCCI
It took five months for the custody battle over Elian Gonzalez to build to a tense standoff. It
took federal agents less than three minutes to end it.
In a cleanly executed predawn raid that caught Elian's Miami relatives off guard, armed and
helmeted U.S. Border Patrol officers pushed aside a handful of demonstrators to batter in the
door of their Little Havana home. At gunpoint, they took the boy from the grip of his
Thanksgiving Day rescuer, fisherman Donato Dalrymple.
``We're taking you to see your papa,'' a Spanish-speaking female agent, Betty Mills, told the
terrified boy as she carried him out of the house to a government van.
Before most of Miami awoke Saturday to what had occurred, Elian had been reunited with
his father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C.
Gonzalez, who asked U.S. officials for five minutes alone with his son, boarded the airplane
that brought Elian from Homestead Air Reserve Base. He emerged carrying the boy, who
held his father in a bear hug, arms and legs wrapped tightly around him, Immigration and
Naturalization Service officials said.
The government said Elian, his father, stepmother and half-brother would spend ``a couple of
days'' at base housing to allow them time together in private.
As stunning images from the raid were almost instantly and repeatedly broadcast on TV here
and across the world, angry protesters began roaming Miami's Flagler Street corridor,
upsetting trash bins in the street and setting tires and debris afire at scores of locations.
Riot-clad police showed little tolerance for the disruptions, gassing those who defied orders
to clear out, and arresting more than 300 people by sunrise Sunday. Three officers were
injured when a demonstrator attacked them with a bat.
By late afternoon, the protests had dwindled to sporadic outbursts. At an evening news
conference, Miami Mayor Joe Carollo and Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas urged calm.
Cuban exile leaders called for a general strike on Tuesday.
In Washington, President Clinton expressed firm support for U.S. Attorney General Janet
Reno's decision to send the agents into the house.
``I believed that it was the right thing to do,'' the president told reporters outside the White
House. ``I hope that with time and support, Elian and his father will have the opportunity to
be a strong family again.''
In Cuba, President Fidel Castro vowed not to use Elian as ``a trophy'' and pledged ``no
celebrations, nothing'' when he returns to Cuba.
The reunion, however, does not put an end to the Miami relatives' efforts to keep Elian in the
United States. A federal appeals court in Atlanta has set a hearing for May 11 and ordered the
boy to stay in the country until it rules on a pending appeal by the relatives.
The relatives want to force the government to give Elian an asylum hearing, but the chances
of that occurring would seem in doubt with the child back in his father's custody.
Elian's relatives, looking shellshocked and exhausted hours after the 5:15 a.m. raid, boarded a
midday flight to Washington, where they hoped to be allowed to see Elian. The family
showed up at the military base gate at 6:45 p.m. in two vans. They were turned away. Elian's
father said ``no, for now,'' an INS official said.
However, the official said, an adjacent house at the base is ready if the father agrees to a visit
from his relatives.
The attorney general ordered the boy's removal by force after all-night negotiations mediated
by local civic leaders failed to resolve the central issue in the impasse -- how the Miami
relatives would turn over Elian to his father, who two weeks ago flew to Washington from
Cuba to await a promised reunification.
The raid was a scenario federal officials had for weeks gone to great lengths to avoid, a
posture that brought Reno criticism for perceived inaction.
But it was the end that seemed more likely once Elian's great-uncle Lazaro Gonzalez defied a
direct government order to surrender the boy.
Two indelible and sharply contrasting images will forever define the morning's dramatic and
An Associated Press photo of a helmeted Border Patrol officer leveling a submachine gun
while a frightened-looking Elian and Dalrymple attempt to squeeze into a bedroom closet.
And -- about six hours later -- another photo of a smiling Elian in the arms of his father, Juan
Miguel Gonzalez. The amateur photo was released by Gonzalez's attorney, Gregory Craig,
who said Elian showed little sign of trauma and acted happy to see his dad and family.
An INS official said Mills, the agent who escorted Elian from Miami to Andrews, described
Elian as ``happily playing on the floor of the house with the toys that we provided.''
PROTESTERS AT BASE
About 50 protesters were gathered at the gates of the base with Cuban and American flags.
Only two supported the government's action.
The raid and the images from it now seem likely to be dissected and debated for months to
Many Americans sighed with relief that the long siege, which dominated the news for weeks,
was finally over. Others, even some who supported the boy's reunification with his father,
expressed shock at the government's show of force.
In Miami-Dade County, the raid prompted cries of outrage among Cuban Americans, the
relatives and supporters, who called the use of force excessive.
As soon as demonstrators outside the relatives' house realized that Elian had been carried
away they began throwing rocks, bottles and debris at the retreating government caravan.
Federal agents tear-gassed them. Some huddled together sobbing, while others shouted
insults at police, Reno and Clinton.
Throughout the morning, Elian's cousin, Marisleysis Gonzalez, who regarded herself as the
boy's surrogate mother, wept through interview after interview, denouncing government
officials as ``dogs'' in a hoarse voice.
The relatives and a group of mediators who tried to forge a last-minute compromise for a
peaceful hand-over, including University of Miami President Edward T. Foote II, said they
felt betrayed by Reno. They said they believed they were close to an agreement, with
prominent Miami lawyer Aaron Podhurst on the phone with Reno when the raid occurred.
``As those conversations were ongoing, the raid took place,'' said Rene Murai, a lawyer and
member of the Mesa Redonda group, two of whose members were acting as mediators in the
negotiations. ``Our members were operating in good faith and all of a sudden the raid took
place in the midst of these negotiations.''
Reno, however, was unequivocal: The relatives kept ``moving the goal posts'' each time an
agreement seemed near, and she and her advisors reluctantly concluded around 4 a.m. that
further negotiation would be fruitless.
``This has been a very emotional case for everyone involved,'' Reno said. ``The most
important thing is that Elian is safe and that no one was seriously hurt.''
It was expected that Juan Miguel Gonzalez, his wife and 6-month-old baby would move out
of the home of a Cuban diplomat where they have been living since arriving in Washington.
One possible location is the Wye Plantation in Maryland.
``Let us give him and his father the space, the calm, the moral support they need to reconnect
and reaffirm their bond between father and son,'' Reno said.
Federal officials had initially promised no surprise assaults on the Little Havana family if
they had to pick up Elian.
But Reno said the covert operation, and the use of heavy arms in the raid, became necessary
given Lazaro Gonzalez's defiant attitude, and intelligence reports of weapons in the Miami
relatives' house and in nearby homes.
On Thursday night, Marisleysis, according to a Justice Department official, told a member of
the agency's Community Relations Service: ``You think we just have cameras in the house? If
people try to come in, they could be hurt.''
Though relatives and supporters of the family complained that agents were rough and used
abusive language, Reno cited the fact that no one was hurt as evidence the raid was
appropriately carried out.
She indicated that the agent photographed confronting Dalrymple in the closet with Elian had
his gun ``pointed to the side'' and his ``finger was not on the trigger.''
Experts who analyzed the photo confirmed Reno's description, and said the rifle's safety was
engaged, meaning the weapon could not have been fired.