Two articles

[Rosa Martinez]

I have chosen two completely different articles. The first one, from The Times, is an article of a political nature. The second one, from The Washington Post, could be called as a society section article.

Both newspapers have similar characteristics because they are reference newspapers in their countries. So, I think that people that will have access to both articles could be similar. That’s why I guess that the reading of one or the other may depend on the interest that the topic may arouse.
The article in The Times refers to the Labor Party and more specifically to the discovery of a secret Facebook group that included politicians and members of this political party. This group on Facebook was a “veritable cesspol of antisemitism". Members of this group proclaimed that the Jews were demons, that they were behind the 9/11 and other things like that.

Throughout the article, the columnist exposes what is the thought of the left in relation to Israel and why its moral myopia illustrates the Labour Party behaviour. The left believes that only the right can be antisemitic and that the left anti-racist is completely incapable of antisemitism. "Believing its own mythology of unchallengeable virtue, the left is unable to recognize that the hideous face snarling from the mirror is its own".
The Washington Post article refers to the designer Hubert de Givenchy, who died on March 10. The columnist defines Givenchy as that rare designer whose work reached everyone from fashion amateurs to the casual observer. He goes on saying that “Givenchy’s work told the story of glamorous sophistication, female rebellion and the complexities of beauty and desire”.

But the most amazing thing is that Givenchy reached this high level with a single small black satin dress with which the actress Audrey Hepburn appears in the opening sequence of the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's" of 1961. It is a special dress. It is not easy to wear, but it does not constrain the woman. "It requires effort but not sacrifice."

Throughout his career as a stylist Givenchy always focused on cutting and proportion. But in any case, one simple moment with that small black satin dress made Givenchy’s work with Hepburn memorable and lasting in time.

Obviously, reading the article in the Washington Post has been much easier, basically because the topic is more understandable and pleasant. However, you should not believe that it is an article without no content. The columnist does not simply relate but rather delves into what a simple stylistic creation has represented at the time of its creation but also as it has influenced after that moment. Instead, The Times article is much more dense and difficult to understand, both because of the topic and because of the language used.

[Admin]

Thanks for your interesting message Rosa. It's hard to compare the style of the two papers if the topic is not the same, we don't really know if the problem was the content or a difference in style. I would have thought that they would be equally hard to read - they both have a reputation for being serious newspapers. Anyway, great work!
See you again,
Pieter

[Fabio]

1. I've found an article referred to "middle youth" at https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-middle-youth-no-such-thing-as-too-old-1294302.html, and another one related to "yubbies" at https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/10/style/for-yubbies-young-urban-bourgeois-bohemians.html.
In my opinion, the difference in style between the two articles is that the latter contains much more "quoted speeches", even though it seems to be more formal than the former.

2. Probably for this reason, I think that the latter is easier to read. That although there may be some sort of difference in "formality" in the articles, but its level doesn't necessarily make them harder, nor easier to read. I believe that, first of all, vocabulary makes the difference. Then, obviously, verbs conjugation and sentences structure directly affect the ease of reading and understanding.

3. It may appear to be trivial, but I believe that, actually, the printed edition of each newspaper is read by the same kind of professionals...probably, the Times is read by the majority, the "mass", because of its stile tailored to reach folks more directly.