AP and Fox News on Brexit: Article Comparison and Analysis
Media houses sometimes distort information to suit their agendas. That does not always mean that the information they report is inaccurate; rather, it may include elements of bias in its conveyance. The presentation and distribution of information often depend on the methods of data collection, motive and personal views of the distributor. As such, news can often contain contamination resulting from bias and skewed perceptions of the parties involved. Most news outlets have political and social affiliations that manifest in either subtle or overt ways. The paper will focus on the coverage of Brexit by Associated Press (AP) and Fox News. Specifically, the paper will offer a summary of the information, analyze it and then provide a comparison between the modes of reporting between the two articles.
The official exit of the U.K. from the EU took place on the 31st of January 2020. Both agents covered the event from Belgium. According to Fox News (Casiano 2020), the crossover took place at midnight in Brussels, the EU headquarters. The event received mixed reactions with parties from both sides airing their views on the matter. The events that culminated in a Brexit created a sharp divide in the country, with nearly half of the population voting to stay in the EU. According to Lawless (2020), the vote to leave the EU was 52%-48%. Consequently, it is not a surprise that there was both a grand celebration and great mourning after the official exit of the U.K. from the EU. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The differing views were evident in the reactions of many U.K. nationals. Also, the remaining members of the EU showed their stands. For instance, Prime Minister Boris Johnson celebrated the change as a fresh start for the U.K. (Lawless 2020). Similarly, Brexit supporters such as Nigel Farage stated that the event marked one of the most crucial moments of the U.K.’s modern history. According to Casiano’s report, Farage equated Brexit to winning a war. However, there were many unhappy faces in the U.K. that held silent vigils as a way of mourning their lost EU identity (Casiano 2020). For instance, Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, marked the day as a time of profound sadness. Similarly, people in Northern Island and Scotland were severely affected by the event. Scotland even demanded the right to independence from the U.K.
Remaining members of the EU also had much to say concerning the event. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron (Lawless 2020) called the EU to wake up and make the event as an alarm in his speech. He advised the body to remain vigilant and device new ways of doing things going forward. EU’s President Ursula von der Leyen warned the U.K. stating that it would lead a lonely existence going forward for its assumption that it drew strength from being alone rather than unity. As such, there was significant backlash for the U.K. for its decision to leave the EU. However, the effects of Brexit may not be apparent as the nation opted for a transition period rather than a hard exit.
From the findings above, it is evident that both articles covered the issue of Brexit extensively from both sides. Moreover, both pieces showcase the different reactions of individuals concerning the Brexit. In terms of facts, both articles offer accurate statistics concerning the event, times, parties affected etc. However, the way the articles presented those facts differed. The reason for choosing these two articles was the fact that they both covered the same event, the official Brexit. Moreover, they posted a day apart from each other. Also, the article dates were very close to the time of the events, which is essential for comparison purposes.
However, a closer look at the two articles shows a sense of bias in the coverage of Fox news. AP News recorded that event from a neutral perspective and presented the story purely as information for the consumers to interpret for themselves. For instance, there is no express projection of the direction the U.K. will take in the coming years or near future following the event. Similarly, the article presented the adverse reactions as well as the positive reactions in equal numbers and with similar weight. Also, AP’s post used neutral language throughout the paper, leaving the issue of perception entirely to the reader. Moreover, the article did not use leading language that can potentially affect the reader’s perspective.
In contrast, Fox News offered several projections and opinions for the event and its possible consequences to the U.K. Fox news highlighted that the British people would feel the effects of the most affected by the exit in the long-run (Lawless 2020). Focusing significantly on the negative aspects of the decision. Moreover, it is evident that Fox news does not support the U.K. leaving the EU and makes use of strong words such as “bitter wrangling,” terms the exit as a “divorce,” and even refers to Brexit as “severing a relationship.” Throughout the article, Fox coverage uses a negative tone to report the news. It focuses mainly on the detrimental impact Brexit will have on the U.K. The article also ends in a negative tone bringing up the matter of Ireland’s “troubles,” hence creating a sense of impending doom for the U.K. following Brexit.
References
Casiano, L. (2020, the 31st of January). Brexit is official: U.K. leaves European Union. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/world/brexit-official-U.K.-european-union
Lawless, J. (2020, the 1st of February). Britain leaves the European Union, leaps into the unknown. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/e48bf51838ced94e2d92adba189b4944