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 twain newspaper articles Asylum meltdown (the sunbathe 20/01/03) with The fight for tolerance the (guardian 20/01/03) and discuss to an extent their psyche of ascertains, 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 huffy report of the increasing number of institution seekers and the immense irreversible wrong this is causing our economic system shaking its very foundations. The article is all told mavin sided i.e. anti safety seekers, labelling them all under one convocation illegal immigrants who ar causing terror and most are Muslims (Algerians, Ethiopians)To circumvent its point across it uses exaggerated facts and charts which will only help it pound its contri exclusivelyors angry and verbotenraged. It used couched in vocabulary, designed to inflame anti- founding seekers feelings. It describes asylum seekers with words or phrases such as illegal immigrants that s contendm 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 political sympathies to construe the problems , fails, generous handouts, time for action.The sun has titled its article Asylum meltdown reflecting that the smirch use ups 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 haveed 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 pennon Read this and get angry is bold and highlighted summarising the whole article. The article is active how, now its time for action against asylu m seekers, for they are going to trail our economy to a downfall. The whole affair is causing us neat loses, it implies as new school, houses and hospitals would need to be build to suffice the added acquire on these already stretched resources. The letter to the Prime minister is the pushing prey 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 provided has always been the case, that is, natural idolise 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 second base all the asylum seekers are homeed as terrorist. Not just one but lots of newspapers are doing this which is c ausing unwarranted panic. It does not proposition if an immigrant changes his name today, for he cannot escape the racial suspicions surrounding asylum seekers. directly there is a risk of interracial terrorism it does not numerate which side of the political system a person stands. There are two sides to the problem, asylum seekers assimilate 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 exerci se 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 conduct.The Guardians language is to stir intellectual abilities. They have a ripe 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 consequently it is stirring its readers just to believe what they read. The sun does not allow its readers to debate 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 motives and aims. Therefore it is debateable as to which of them is more persuasive.I in person 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.