Target readership Essays

Target readership Essays Target readership Paper Target readership Paper How do editors of tabloids and broadsheet newspapers use content, language, layout and images to attract and reflect their target readership? An analysis of the front pages of The Guardian and The Daily Mail from 16th March 2001. Targets: 1. To show insight into the idea of readership. 2. To analyse the way that the style and presentation are used in the media. 3. To analyse the way that language and images are used to create an impact. 4. To present and explain my opinions clearly and logically. British newspapers have been around for nearly three centuries.There are ten British national papers divided into two main categories: the tabloids and the broadsheets. The tabloids contain many articles on celebrities and gossip, some news and many large pictures. The most popular tabloids are The Sun and The Mirror (red tops). The broadsheets are larger papers and more serious. They include more news stories and cover politics and world issues. The most popular broadsheet is The Daily Telegraph. The circulation of the national papers has lowered from 15,672,431 in 1989, to 14,270,111 in 1994.This is because there is more technology today. People can receive instant news on the television, radio and internet. It is important for newspapers to know, target, attract and reflect their readership. With this information, they can write articles that interest their readers. It creates an image of what the readers are attracted to. The Guardian is a broadsheet. It is a slightly left-wing newspaper generally supporting the Government and Labour Party. According to stereotypes, people with professional jobs mainly read this paper.Statistics show that about twenty per cent of people aged 20-45 read The Guardian. The Daily Mail is one of two newspapers called the middle market dailies. It is a tabloid paper, but has a balance of news and feature articles. Stereotypes of the readers of The Daily Mail suggest that this paper is read mostly by less professional people. However, statistics prove that mostly professionals or people in junior management read The Daily Mail with a wide age group. The top of a newspaper can encourage sales if the readers are interested in what they see.As The Guardian is a very large newspaper, it is folded when in the shop so that only the top is seen by the customers. For this reason, the top of The Guardian has to be attractive and contain articles that interest its readers; Rewriting history. Why South Africas schools are stuck in the past. This is in the strapline that focuses on a different story than the main article. This suggests that the newspapers readers are interested in history and world issues, as this paper focuses on Africa and education.It seems that the editor of the newspaper wants to include all articles that its readers are interested in. The top of The Daily Mail is quite different to The Guardian. The style of the name suggests the newspaper is traditional as it has a royal crest in between. This suggests that the newspaper wants to create a traditional style paper. The main strapline reflects the readership of the newspaper; Britains farmers are suffering terribly. For them, and for the sake of our rural heritage Firstly, this shows that The Daily Mails readers are concerned about Britain and its farmers.Secondly, it shows that its readers are interested in the countryside and want to keep up the tradition of farming. The Daily Mail uses emotive language as it asks for their readers contribution to their Farm Aid Appeal. An emotional photograph is placed in the top right corner of newborn lambs, which attracts people, especially animal-lovers. This will make the readers feel sympathetic and will feel like they have to contribute to the appeal. Both papers focus on the foot and mouth story on the same day as it gives the latest information on a disease that indirectly affects almost everyone.Most cows and sheep are being killed, even if they are healthy, to try to stop the disease from spreading. Farmers are losing their money and the general election has been postponed as politics are also affected. This story will attract most readers for different reasons: farmers will want to know the latest information as it affects their business; any member of the public will want to an update on the disease as it affects the food they buy; and the people interested in the Government will want to know the date for the election.Also, animal-lovers will be concerned about the disease. Considering the stereotypes and statistics of the two different newspapers, it is clear that the two different newspapers will have different types of articles regarding the foot and mouth story. One can expect The Guardian to focus on the political side of any story and how business is affected by the news. The reader of The Daily Mail can predict to read less about politics, but about personal views and their opinions to the story. The Guardian focuses on the political side of the foot and mouth disease.It contains information on the latest news about the election and what the Government is planning to do about the crisis. The reporter is an environment correspondent and is trying not to be biased. Instead, he quotes the NFU president as he is more biased. This suggests that the newspaper aims to be as fair as possible and to produce mainly facts for its readers. This indicates that the reader does not want to read any gossip, but news that can inform them of the latest. The Daily Mail focuses on a personal point of view;It was when Blackie caught his eye that it really hit Leyland Branfield. This gives an emotional view about a specific farmer. It is the introduction to the article and makes the reader question who Blackie and Leyland Branfield are, encouraging them to read on. This, along with the heading, makes the article sound like it is a story. This will attract more readers. The heading of The Guardian is less attractive than The Daily Mail; Ministers gamble on mass cull This is the main headline and tells the reader that the main story is focused on politics.The word gamble is emotive language, which could suggest to the reader that Labour is lacking control or giving up. This will attract readers, as it is close to the election, and if Labour is not achieving what they should, the public could change their mind on who to vote for. In addition, there is a small article next to this about Labour, proving that the Government is a subject that most readers are concerned about. Some of the language used in the two different newspapers is quite different. However, a few techniques are used in both papers.

US Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and the Lend-Lease Act

US Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and the Lend-Lease Act The Neutrality Acts were a series of laws enacted by the United States government between 1935 and 1939 that were intended to prevent the United States from becoming involved in foreign wars. They more-or-less succeeded until the imminent threat of World War II spurred passage of the 1941 Lend-Lease Act (H.R. 1776), which repealed several key provisions of the Neutrality Acts. Key Takeaways: Neutrality Acts and Lend-Lease The Neutrality Acts, enacted between 1935 and 1939, were intended to prevent the United States from becoming involved in foreign wars.In 1941, the threat of World War II drove passage of the Lend-Lease Act repealing key provisions of the Neutrality Acts.Championed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Lend-Lease Act authorized the transfer of U.S. arms or other war materials to Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union, and other nations threatened by the Axis powers without the requirement of monetary repayment. Isolationism Spurred the Neutrality Acts Although many Americans had supported President Woodrow Wilson’s 1917 demand that Congress help create a world â€Å"made safe for democracy† by declaring war on Germany in World War I, the Great Depression of the 1930s spurred a period of American isolationism that would persist until the nation entered World War II in 1942. Many people continued to believe that World War I had involved mainly foreign issues and that America’s entry into the bloodiest conflict in human history had mainly benefited U.S. bankers and arms dealers. These beliefs, combined with the people’s ongoing struggle to recover from the Great Depression, fueled an isolationist movement that opposed the nation’s involvement future foreign wars and financial involvement with the countries fighting in them. The Neutrality Act of 1935 By the mid-1930s, with war in Europe and Asia imminent, the U.S. Congress took action to ensure U.S. neutrality in foreign conflicts. On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act. The primary provisions of the law banned the export of â€Å"arms, ammunition, and implements of war† from the United States to any foreign nations at war and required U.S. arms makers to apply for export licenses. â€Å"Whoever, in violation of any of the provisions of this section, shall export, or attempt to export, or cause to be exported, arms, ammunition, or implements of war from the United States, or any of its possessions, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both †¦,† stated the law. The law also specified that all arms and war materials found being transported from the U.S. to any foreign nations at war, along with the â€Å"vessel, or vehicle† carrying them would be confiscated. In addition, the law placed American citizens on notice that if they attempted to travel to any foreign nation in a war zone, they did so at their own risk and should not expect any protection or intervention on their behalf from the U.S. government. On February 29, 1936, Congress amended the Neutrality Act of 1935 to prohibit individual Americans or financial institutions from loaning money to foreign nations involved in wars. While President Franklin D. Roosevelt initially opposed and considered vetoing the Neutrality Act of 1935, he signed it in the face of strong public opinion and congressional support for it.   The Neutrality Act of 1937 In 1936, the Spanish Civil War and the growing threat of fascism in Germany and Italy boosted support for further expanding the scope of the Neutrality Act. On May 1, 1937, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the Neutrality Act of 1937, which amended and made the Neutrality Act of 1935 permanent. Under the 1937 Act, U.S. Citizens were barred from traveling on any ship registered to or owned by any foreign nation involved in ​a  war. In addition, American merchant ships were forbidden from carrying arms to such â€Å"belligerent† nations, even if those arms were made outside of the United States.  The president was given the authority to ban all ships of any sort belonging to nations at war from sailing in U.S. waters. The Act also extended its prohibitions to apply to nations involved in civil wars, like the Spanish Civil War. In one concession to President Roosevelt, who had opposed the first Neutrality Act, the 1937 Neutrality Act gave the president the authority to allow nations at war to acquire materials not considered â€Å"implements of war,† such as oil and food, from the United States, provided the material was immediately paid for – in cash – and that the material was carried only on foreign ships. The so-called â€Å"cash-and-carry† provision had been promoted by Roosevelt as a way to Help Great Britain and France in their looming war against the Axis Powers. Roosevelt reasoned that only Britain and France had enough cash and cargo ships to take advantage of the â€Å"cash-and-carry† plan. Unlike other provisions of the Act, which were permanent, Congress specified that that â€Å"cash-and-carry† provision would expire in two years. The Neutrality Act of 1939 After Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, President Roosevelt asked Congress to renew the â€Å"cash-and-carry† provision and expand it to include arms and other materials of war. In a stinging rebuke, Congress refused to do either. As the war in Europe expanded and the Axis nations’ sphere of control spread, Roosevelt persisted, citing the Axis threat to the freedom of America’s European allies. At last, and only after lengthy debate, Congress relented and in November of 1939, enacted a final Neutrality Act, which repealed the embargo against the sale of arms and placed all trade with nations at war under the terms of â€Å"cash-and-carry.† However, the prohibition of U.S. monetary loans to belligerent nations remained in effect and U.S. ships were still prohibited from delivering goods of any kind to countries at war. The Lend-Lease Act of 1941 By late 1940, it had become unavoidably apparent to Congress that the growth of the Axis powers in Europe could eventually threaten the lives and freedom of Americans. In an effort to help the nations fighting the Axis, Congress enacted the Lend-Lease Act (H.R. 1776) in March 1941. The Lend-Lease Act authorized the President of the United States to transfer arms or other defense-related materials – subject to ​the  approval of funding by Congress – to the â€Å"government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States† at no cost to those countries. Permitting the president to send arms and war materials to Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union, and other threatened nations without payment, the Lend-Lease plan allowed the United States to support the war effort against the Axis without becoming engaged in battle. Viewing the plan as drawing America closer to war, Lend-Lease was opposed by influential isolationists, including Republican Senator Robert Taft. In debate before the Senate, Taft stated that the Act would â€Å"give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the front-line trenches where the fighting is.† Among the public, opposition to Lend-Lease was led by the America First Committee. With a membership of over 800,000, including national hero Charles A. Lindbergh, America First challenged Roosevelt’s every move. Roosevelt took complete control of the program, quietly sending Sec. of Commerce Harry Hopkins, Sec. of State Edward Stettinius Jr., and diplomat W. Averell Harriman on frequent special missions to London and Moscow to coordinate Lend-Lease overseas. Still acutely aware of public sentiment for neutrality, Roosevelt saw to it that details of Lend-Lease expenditures were hidden away in the overall military budget and not allowed to become public until after the war. It is now known that a total of $50.1 billion- about $681 billion today- or about 11% of the total U.S. war expenditures went to Lend-Lease. On a country-by-country basis, U.S. expenditures broke down as follows: British Empire: $31.4 billion (about $427 billion today)Soviet Union: $11.3 billion (about $154 billion today)France: $3.2 billion (about $43.5 billion today)China: $1.6 billion (about to $21.7 billion today) By October 1941, the overall success of the Lend-Lease plan in assisting the allied nations prompted President Roosevelt to seek the repeal of other sections of the Neutrality Act of 1939. On October 17, 1941, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to repeal the section of the Act prohibiting the arming of U.S. merchant ships. A month later, following a series of deadly German submarine attacks on U.S. Navy and merchant ships in international waters, Congress repealed the provision that had barred U.S. ships from delivering arms to belligerent seaports or â€Å"combat zones.† In retrospect, the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s allowed the U.S. Government to accommodate the isolationist sentiment held by a majority of the American people while still protecting America’s security and interests in a foreign war. The Lend-Lease agreements provided that the countries involved would repay the United States not with money or returned goods, but with â€Å"joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world.† Meaning the U.S. would be repaid when the recipient country helped the U.S. fight common enemies and agreed to join new world trade and diplomatic agencies, such as the United Nations. Of course, the isolationists’ hopes of America maintaining any pretense of neutrality in World War II ended on the morning of December 7, 1942, when the Japanese Navy attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.