The Daily Mail Essays

The Daily Mail Essays The Daily Mail Essay The Daily Mail Essay The Evening Standard is published by Associated Newspapers Ltd which is the management company for five major newspapers; Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Evening Standard, London Metro, Ireland on Sunday as well as the advertising publication, The Loot. The Evening Standard is the only evening newspaper in London, published daily, and is generally perceived as being the first paper to break important news thus setting the agenda for the next days news. It is a tabloid newspaper with certain assertions to being an intelligent tabloid. Associated newspapers are known to be a company right of the middle, with its politics most characterised by The Daily Mail. It publishes four editions throughout the day (between 8.00am and 4.00pm) and has a daily circulation in excess of 424,000 and an estimated readership of 1 million. The paper also comes with a supplement four times a week and Metro Life on a Thursday which contains all the information concerning what is happening in London for the forthcoming week in relation to cinema, clubbing and the arts. The general readership is made up of commuters as the paper has its own newsstands set up around the capital as well as sellers at traffic lights and around train and underground stations. The content is generally specific to its audience as it regularly reports on London issues and prides itself on this and utilises it as a selling point. This article concerns the proposed smoking-bans in Londons public places after its introduction in New York and San Francisco and its active encouragement in California. The headline is surprisingly understated and appears almost conversational as if an invitation to debate as opposed to a strict call to support or opposition. The article promotes a survey, the biggest ever about the contentious issue and provides information about how to access the survey on the internet, in itself an indication of the audience (i.e. that they have access to the internet through work or home which suggests a middle class market). The piece quotes research gathered by the anti-smoking pressure group, Smoke-Free London but provides no research from any pro-smoking groups. This research showed that a significant majority of people supported their cause (between 70-75%) which is of no surprise as they would not have published results that did not support their claims. The results from the survey the article is promoting will be passed to London Mayor, Ken Livingstone in January. We are subsequently told that the Mayor does not have the authority to introduce a smoking ban but is committed to working with partners to cut smoking in public places. Upon close analysis of the article the implication is that the proposed smoking ban will most likely not be exclusive but each sector, such as club industry, pub industry, shopping centres, will be informed of the results and asked to make a decision based upon the findings of their market. The likelihood of an all-out ban seems low but there may be levels of restriction imposed. The chairman of the London Health Commission, Len Duvall is also consulted who we must assume would also be in favour of the ban although his comments seem quite objective;Â  Smoking is something that affects all Londoners whether they smoke or not. We want to give them the chance to have their say on whether smoking should or should not be allowed in a range of public settings. It is interesting that the article refers to the introduction of smoking bans in California and New York but makes no further reference to this. The writer neglects to comment on the implications that it has had on businesses there. Upon my own private research, I found that a number of businesses have lost significant trade and some have ceased trading altogether due to the new law. No doubt, the statistics do not enforce the beliefs of the writer and are thus omitted. There are no expert consultations regarding a stance against the ban and the article descends into the style of a pub debate as arguments are already raging in Londons bars. We are presented with the opinion of two customers at Clapham Commons SW4 bar which has already introduced segregated smoking areas. Both customers appear to be middle class (a nursery nurse and a property developer from Borough and Kensington, respectively) and thus have more meaningful opinions within media ideology although the property developer, a smoker and against the ban, appears much more articulate than his opponent;Â  To say that a person cannot smoke in a public place is, in my opinion, an infringement of that individuals civil liberties. The positioning of his quotation is significant as it appears at the very end of the article to conclude it. It is the only opinion featured that actively opposes the ban and to leave it to the end could suggest a certain dead donkey attitude from the journalist towards it but personally I find that it emphasises his position and slightly trivialises the content of the article previous. The reader leaves the article with this impression and opinion engrained upon them.