3. We were asked to produce examples of factual writing, the first one that I chose was of an article from the Guardian. The guardian are known for writing
factually, and this example is no different. The article is news from the court case surrounding old News Of the World staff. The article is very concise, it
produces all the facts and doesn’t have any opinions. The only opinions that it might show is that of people that have been interviewed and quoted. Articles
from the Guardian and the Times for example are always like this. These are classed as broadsheet newspapers, because they don’t show any bias. The
newspapers that are quite biased are tabloid newspapers, which include The Sun and The Mirror. These newspapers only have a few facts to a story, and they
are normally very opinionated. With this example from the Guardian, the facts are all written down very accurately and clearly, which shows on the first few
opening lines. These shows what the article is going to be about and what information they have got to write the article. This article, along with other factual
articles from broadsheet newspapers, have as few words as possible; they couldn’t use any less because then all the facts wouldn’t be there. This article seems
like it is accurate because of the way the writer seems to have been at the court at that time. When the journalist says “on the forth day in the witness box,
Brooks also said…” this shows that the journalist must have been writing from inside the courtroom, so the story would be accurate. The way the journalist
have written the piece shows that the story is unbiased and concise. This shows because they don’t go off topic; they have written down all the facts that
they know about and they haven’t said anything extra. For example they have gone on to talk about their opinions on the people involved, they have clearly
stated the facts like they should. This goes on to shows that the journalist has avoided ambiguity. They have talked about everything clearly, and they have
produced facts throughout. If you read this article it is clear that you can’t really interpret the story in a different way, because there are too many facts to
argue with. It is clear that this journalist has written this article factually because they haven’t used any abbreviations, they have written formally and, because
of this, the article is clear and easy to read. This article shows evidence of the argument involved because it shows the views of the people at the court,
including the News Of the World journalist that is being questioned. There are quotes from the journalists barrister, the journalist herself and facts of the
whole trial. I believe that none of this is biased, if the article wanted to be biased then the journalist writing the article wouldn't have got quotes from
Brooks, just other people like maybe the judge and people that she had apparently hacked. The quotes that have been taken have been clearly stated; it is
easy to understand where they came from and they back up the facts in the article. This is good referencing, and it helps show that the facts are true. There
are a few legal constraints that this journalist would have to take into account. For example they couldn’t try to produce hatred towards a certain person or
group. The journalist who wrote this shows that they aren’t trying to personal harm anyone else, they are clearly stating facts from a court case. They have
written their article in a way that shows that they don’t have any opinions on the case, they are just trying to get the information out to the public. There
could be issues with contempt, but this article shows that there wasn’t any issues. The codes of practice that apply would be ones that stop the journalist
from saying thing that they shouldn’t do because its an on going court case.
4.
5.
With this example I can see that the information that has been given is very clear and concise. There isn’t that many aspects that with
distract the viewer from the facts, and I believe that this leaflet is easy to read. It produces the facts about puppy farming quite boldly, which
is what they would have been wanting because they would have made this leaflet to shock and inform people. This leaflet is easy to read
because the writing is on a white background, there are different paragraphs that talk about different issues, and there are also bullet points
to show what the reader can do to get more information. The information that has been written on this leaflet is accurate, there is a link to a
legit website and the facts that have been produced show that they know what they are talking about. There isn’t a way for this information
to be interpreted different ways because of how many facts there are. This shows that the writer has avoided ambiguity because readers
won’t be able to interpret the facts differently. I don’t believe that there is any vagueness in this leaflet, the facts are clearly laid out and it
doesn’t drift off to talk about anything different, or share opinions. There is however some bias in this leaflet, which will almost be the same
with any charity leaflet that is produced, since they are trying to inform and persuade. There is however evidence supporting the bias,
because the writer has produced facts to support their argument. The language that has been used in this leaflet shows they the writer knows
that what they are saying is true, and that they can back up the facts that they produce. They seem well educated and professional, which
makes the leaflet look formal and factual. The issues have been clearly stated in this leaflet, but there is only one side to the puppy farming
argument.. They didn’t have a quote from anyone that works on one of these farms, which makes the leaflet look biased and doesn’t really
show the evidence for their argument. This leaflet doesn’t reference a lot of different sources, because they only talk about the facts they
know and how to get involved. To make this better they could have referenced where they got this information from. There isn’t many legal
constraints and codes of practice that apply, the only ones that would, would be the ones that state that the charity cannot produce products
that are made to directly harm and upset a certain person or a group of people. To do this they haven’t named any places that have been
known to use puppy farms, or anybody in particular that would be involved. If they did this then they could face a libel case.
6.
7.
This example is an instruction manual on how to put up flat pack furniture. The information on these leaflets
are clear an easy to read. They use an arrow to direct people, like a step by step guide. This makes the leaflet easy
to understand, and people will be able to understand what they need to do. The information is very concise; there
isn’t much text and the text that is used will simply help people understand the guide better. These leaflets look
accurate, the information has come from a company that makes tools to put up flat pack furniture. The
information wont be able to be interpreted in different ways, simply because of the use of images. These images
clearly state the steps that people need to take. Without these images the information that is used might be
uncertain to people. This shows that the leaflets avoid ambiguity, because they are able to show clearly what they
mean through their images. Since this is a step by step instruction guide, there is no room for bias. The steps or
factual and it won’t contain any opinions. An instruction guide will normally be written formally, which this
example does. Its written in a professional manner, which is what the company would have been aiming for. This
is no argument and opinions in a guide like this, so there will be no evidence for this. There are no references
either, only to the one that links the guide to their own personal company, which is all an instruction leaflet like
this needs. There won’t be any legal constraints either, ad the codes of practice that apply are only the ones that
state that they can’t use information from other sources and not reference them.
