Compare newspaper articles: “Asylum meltdown” (the sun 20/01/03) with “The fight for tolerance” the (guardian 20/01/03)

As part of my GCSE Citizenship coursework I had to comp ar cardinal newspaper articles Asylum meltdown (the sunbathe 20/01/03) with The fight for margin the (guardian 20/01/03) and discuss to an extent their designate of dupes, their language, effectiveness, typographic techniques, and persuasiveness on the issue and then give my point of view, explaining clearly my ideas with references to evidence.The sun gives an stormy report of the increasing number of mental institution seekers and the immense irreversible handicap this is causing our economic system shaking its very foundations. The article is solely unmatchable sided i.e. anti bema seekers, labelling them all under one multitude illegal immigrants who be causing terror and most are Muslims (Algerians, Ethiopians)To contract its point across it uses exaggerated facts and charts which will only help it tie its lectors angry and byraged. It used couched in vocabulary, designed to inflame anti- initiation seeke rs feelings. It describes mental institution seekers with words or phrases such as illegal immigrants that swarfarem into Britain, claiming benefits at the expense of tax payers, taking advantage, using Britain as doormat , asylum madness, etc.It uses bold letters to emphasise the failure of our authorities to checker the problems , fails, generous handouts, time for action.The sun has titled its article Asylum meltdown reflecting that the concomitant contains to be cracked, asylum seekers need to be sorted and the g all overnment needs to be revived.They used a picture effective in its purpose to support a negative and imbalanced article. The picture shows asylum seekers m beseeched and crossing barriers, a representation of the border of the country, showing us that instead of using the gate they are coming in illegally.Its waft Read this and get angry is bold and highlighted summarising the whole article. The article is near how, now its time for action against asylum seek ers, for they are going to evanesce our economy to a downfall. The whole affair is causing us massive loses, it implies as new school, houses and hospitals would need to be build to suffice the added requirement on these already stretched resources. The letter to the Prime minister is the pushing disapprove of the article.The guardians fight for tolerance takes a different prospective on the issue. It says that the solicitude over asylum seekers is only the first part of a war that will be waged against liberal values. M. Bunting is saying that this problem over asylum seekers is non something that is new just now has always been the case, that is, natural terror like at the time of the Nazis. The newspapers are making the situation worse (like the Sun) by exaggerating and interpreting the wrong ideas. One minute the Algerians were considered terrorist the next snatch all the asylum seekers are sieveed as terrorist. Not just one nevertheless lots of newspapers are doing t his which is causing unwarranted panic. It does not discipline if an immigrant changes his name today, for he cannot escape the racial suspicions surrounding asylum seekers. at present there is a risk of interracial terrorism it does not field which side of the political system a person stands. There are two sides to the problem, asylum seekers nurture the right to seek help and asylum but under the suspicion of terrorism. The fact that Islamic foreigners can be terrorist seems frightening. As the economy grew, many thought that things would improve but that does not seem to be the case. Liberal views have led to many problems for they have no qualms about allowing people of different race and nationality to immigrate but doctrine religious intolerance. The in secularity needs to be lost, what remains is to ask is individual freedom is more important than national security?The Guardian places a rational argument which lays out facts and historical data than is request the reader to exercise his mind and be tolerant.The readers of the guardian are the middle class well educated people who would not accept the Suns point of view since it is bias and directed towards the lower working class individuals who are sheep that are go on.The Guardians language is to stir intellectual abilities. They have a sophisticate vocabulary and a complex argument. The poster they use is quite reprehensive of a disaster or a chaotic situation. The poster is screaming out What is the world coming to?Both the sun and the guardian have a different target audience and are persuasive in their area. The sun is for the lower working class as already understood and therefore it is stirring its readers just to believe what they read. The sun does not allow its readers to mean for them selves and they will not think for themselves. The sun exaggerates and is unbiased. The guardian though is asking its readers to think and thus they both have a different point of view with different mo tives and aims. Therefore it is debateable as to which of them is more persuasive.I personally am a strong supporter of the guardians article which argues that what we are doing is wrong. As a nation we need to consider our security and safety but we cannot class all asylum seekers as terrorists for they have rights over us and we need to understand their pain or suffering that have lead many genuine asylum seekers here, which we cannot understand sitting in a centrally heated house with all the basic luxuries and talking. Thus we need to fight for tolerance.