Mediation and the story The Guardian and the Daily Mail

Both the Guardian and the Daily Mail are two historically institutional papers.
The Guardian, a broadsheet central left political paper of record, which aims to
uphold its founding liberal causes. The Daily Mail, a politically central right
tabloid paper with high journalistic standards. Through this report I will aim to
portray how the history, political bias and ownership as well as cultural and
institutional factors affect the way a story is mediated and written.
The Guardian was founded in 1821 in Manchester by John Edward Taylor with
the aims of promotion of the liberal interest in the aftermath of the Peterloo
Massacre and the growing campaign to repeal the Corn Laws that flourished in
Manchester during this period.[1] Northern Cities in England such as
Manchester and Liverpool contained mostly working class populations, this
gave way to liberal and socialist political views as they were taken advantage
of by their employers in the Industrial Revolution. The Peterloo Massacre of
1819 was a protest which ended in blood shed as guardsmen charged on the
crowd with sabers drawn, killing 17 and injuring 400.
Politically much of the modern liberal values of the Guardian can be found in an
article from 1921 written by its then editor and eventual owner CP Scott. Scott
was a journalist working in the Guardian for most of his life, in this editorial
piece he reflects on the last hundred years of the Guardian and the next
hundred to come. He upholds the liberal responsibility of the paper to have a
moral as well as a material existence and also the journalistic values of the
paper comment is free, but facts are sacred.[2] Guardian editors have since
then aimed to uphold these values.
The Daily Mail however, founded 1896 was due to less intense political reasons.
Due to the invention of the telegraph pole in the US in the 1800s, the American
form of Journalism changed; short, more concise stories made for a compact
paper rather than a broadsheet. To Alfred Harmsworth of London, who had just
opened a publishing company years previous, this new type of paper was
needed on the British market.
With slogans like "A Penny Newspaper for One Halfpenny" [3], Harmsworth
aimed to make this national paper affordable for all. It focused on technological
advances of the time and on health and well-being for its readers. Politically
the paper was always central-right however its political bias was effected by
the first and second world wars. The paper was gifted with the ability to write
about the Great War uncensored however with the rise of Fascism in the 30s
its political stance shifted. Lord Rothmere was owner of both the Mail and the
Daily Express during the rise of Oswald Mosley's black shirts in Britain and as a
fascist sympathiser used both of these papers to promote Mosley and his party
with the Daily Mail headline Hurrah for the Blackshirts. [4] This stance did not
last however as both papers dropped their fascist sympathies only a year later.
In terms of its social demographic the geography of Manchester offices suited
the Guardian for most of its life time as the voice of the Manchester working
classes. However its change in status to a National newspaper in the mid 21st C
forced the paper to drop 'Manchester' from its title and to begin printing in

London. The move of all offices to London in 1976 is attributed by the Guardian
to consolidate the Guardians position in the national market, and the paper
then enjoyed a decade of unchallenged dominance as the voice of the Left. [5]
The Daily Mail had however from its outset aimed to be a national paper
representing the majority of the population. The offices in London suited this
and the paper was successful in gaining a readership greater than any other UK
paper. The national title of the paper can be illustrated by its push in
technological advances throughout the papers life In the very first issue it
predicted, with striking foresight, the place that the motor car then much
derided would occupy within a few years. It seized on every advance in
communication. [6]
Today, both papers readership reflect past figures with The Mail still holding the
majority of the market with 3.8 million readers[7] and the Guardian with only
843,000 in print readership.[8] It is worth noting however that the Guardian
has a substantially greater online following, through its app and website, that
the Mail not just in Britain but across the world. The Guardian boast 87% ABC1
readers [8] whilst the Mail states 64.3% ABC1 readers. [7]
Ethically Guardian staff retain their journalistic morales though CP Scott's
'Hundred Years' piece The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has
a right to be heard. Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint. It
is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair. [2] Interestingly The Guardian
this year, similarly to the FT and the Independent, turned down the opportunity
to join the press complaints body IPSO. In a well balanced argument the
Guardian's Roy Greenslade states They do not wish to sign up to a flawed
regulator that, in every key aspect, is little different from its predecessor
because it is just not independent enough. Yet they do not want to risk joining a
regulator relying on recognition through a royal charter. [9]
The Daily Mail however signed up to IPSO without hesitation and without
explanation on their decision to do so. Their sub site on 'Clarifications and
corrections' does little in the way of presenting the Mails ethical standards or
opinion on the argument on free press currently happening in the country. Paul
Harris, the Mail's chief feature writer states however The present-day staff
maintain the spirit and ideals of its founder that it would inform, entertain and
persuade. [6]
I have decided to compare these two papers in terms of mediation and
targeting on the story from December that there has been an influx in the NHS
nurses from non-English speaking countries. This story will sway to the political
leaning of both papers; we can expect that the Guardian as a leftist liberal
voice will not place blame on the migrant nurses themselves because of the
papers soft approach to immigration. But rather highlight the voice of those
who place blame, arguably, on the Conservative government and its cuts to the
NHS causing under staffing.
From what we have previously discussed we can expect that The Daily Mail as
the Conservative voice of 'middle-England' will not focus on Tory cuts to the
health service but on the inability of the health service itself and on the

linguistic ability of these 'foreign nurses' because of its politically hard stance
of immigration.
The reality is that the Guardian and Daily Mail both present the figures that are
the core of this story A new analysis of 140 English acute hospital trusts nurse
recruitment shows that in the year to September, 103 of them hired a
combined total of 5,778 nurses from abroad a big increase on the 1,360
nurses employed from outside the UK in 12/13. [10]
It is however in the voices the papers choose to include reacting to the news
that reveals their political targeting. The Guardian quotes a 'Leading Expert' in
blaming under staffing; recruitment from overseas was merely a band aid to
the major problem of understaffing. [10] This reveals to us that although not
blatantly placing blame on the Conservative government it does suggest the
NHS is facing a larger issue.
The Mail opposingly includes the voice of Peter Carter from the Royal College of
Nursing, suggesting it is the fault of the NHS itself and not cuts The last few
years have seen real panic-buying of nurses from wherever they can be found.
[11]
The Guardian also voices the concerns of Prof Jane Ball who places blame on a
greater NHS problem This shows we are in a serious shortage of nurses and it
is a shortage that has been waiting to be realised; it is not new or sudden. This
is about uncovering what has been a growing, deepening problem that the NHS
decided not to focus on because of financial pressures and other challenges.
[10]
The Mail also includes the voice of Prof Jane Ball, however does not include her
quote on an already unstable NHS, instead quoting her opinion on this specific
story a short-term and inefficient stop gap.[11] Interestingly the Mail reports
that it had carried out an investigation on the skills of these 'foreign nurses'
suggesting that they were struggled to fill out basic forms and needed a
translation service. Managers failed to carry out rigorous written tests on
candidates English, and offered help with completing the application forms
using an automatic translation website. [11]
What's most interesting about this 'investigation' is the statement included at
the bottom of the article from Bedford Hospital NHS Trust stating The
interview panel in Portugal included senior nurses from the Trust and the
process included written tests followed by rigorous interviews in English,
testing listening skills and reasoning applied to nursing practice, including drug
calculations. The applicants are also asked to write a care plan. Trust staff did
not help applicants complete their forms and it is not willing to employ nurses
who have a limited command of English. A number of nurses were not offered
contracts for this reason. [11] This contradiction in the Mail's reporting shows
a poor standard of journalism in which political targeting has won over
journalistic integrity.
We have looked at each papers targeting in terms of politics, geography and
readership perception over the course of each of their lifetimes. Along with a
comparison on this political and socially important story we can clearly see two

well defined political stances and two forms of mediation.

The Guardian as a paper of record voicing liberal ideas and socialist stances
and The Mail representing the majority of Britain with a conservative stance on
domestic issues and a tabloid style on celebrity gossip. Both of these papers
have had an opposing effect on government and social change, truly affecting
the path the nation has walked over the last 150 years.