Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This is my 500 word comment piece I've been working on for my interview this friday (ok so i got up at 8am and just wrote it, that's NOT cheating) and it's EXACTLY 500 words. Any thoughts or opinions I'd love them!

    In the light of the reporting leadng up to the war with Iraq, to what extent are the media to blame for the diminishing trust people are said to have in politicians?

    Politicians lie, fact. Along with, people die, Santa doesn’t exist and Jim won’t fix it for you. Increasingly so nowadays people have a deep distrust for “politicians” and although it seems to be becoming more apparent why, it’s not a new idea. Since the invention of government people have disagreed with what they say, the actions they take and the expensive wallpaper they spend our taxes on. So when the issue of war with Iraq came up, the public were sceptical of what the politicians were saying.

    “We have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist networks...” that’s what was said. They “believe” that he had them, despite having millions of pounds and dollars invested in secret security that could read a newspaper headline off a street in New York from space. They couldn’t actually find them; they just believed he had them. That was really going to go down well with the CND and anti-war supporters who weren’t big fans in the first place.

    It was dangerous, they could increase tax, annoy us by making us spend 6 pence extra a year. They could invest in more speed cameras, loading us with fines but they were talking about taking troops into battle, people’s partners, parents and children and make them cannon fodder for this monster the media and government had created. That was really going to go down well wasn’t it?

    So when public support wasn’t as high as they’d wanted it was blamed on the media, the BBC poisoning the British public with their consciousness objectors’ beliefs. They painted a picture of our political system as corruption and heresy. It just wasn’t “British” (or European, or whatever club Tony Blair wanted to join that week).

    The media, in the interest of “educating” the people and increasing circulation highlighted the downfalls of the government and questioned every choice they made. (If it’s not hard enough controlling a country and preparing for a war you have to have the world’s press on your back as well!)

    So who was to blame for trust in politicians taking a dive? Was it the government themselves? The government are very good at digging holes for themselves, but they are just as corrupt, possibly less, than hundreds of years ago. They have to be more careful because of the press watching their every move. The media? The media would be one of the obvious suspects. Digging up anything to sell papers, but the papers wouldn’t say anything untrue. There are laws; they can’t print anything that was just made up? What about the public? With threats of terrorism, Al-Qaeda and other unspeakable terrors fuelled by both the government and media no wonder we were losing trust in those that control us. To a certain extent the media were to blame for the diminished trust in politicians, but they could only be guilty for placing the evidence into the public domain for us to make our own assumptions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Please! It's my first choice University and any informed criticism can only be good
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    First person to give me GOOD informed criticism gets rep
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    ...
    i dont want to sound liek a ******* but you put commas in really wierd places.

    it makes it difficult to read..

    'Along with people die Santa doesn’t exist and Jim won’t fix it for you.'

    i dont even get that bit; are you talking about the lies or the facts?! the Santa bit would almost suggest lie because lots of people still like to believe..

    'Increasingly so nowadays people have a deep distrust for “politicians” and although'

    um.. it sounds a bit wierd; perhaps, 'increasingly so nowadays; people have...'

    'why, it’s not a new idea.'

    that bit sounds too informal. get rid of the why

    'and the expensive wallpaper they spend our taxes on'


    'high as they’d wanted it was blamed'
    comma after after wanted

    'The media, in the interest of “educating” the people and increasing circulation'

    sounds like youre taking a dig at the media.. but arent you going to be part of the media?

    other than that; very good
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    This is my 500 word comment piece I've been working on for my interview this friday (ok so i got up at 8am and just wrote it, that's NOT cheating) and it's EXACTLY 500 words. Any thoughts or opinions I'd love them!

    In the light of the reporting leadng up to the war with Iraq, to what extent are the media to blame for the diminishing trust people are said to have in politicians?

    Politicians lie, fact. Along with, people die, Santa doesn’t exist and Jim won’t fix it for you. Increasingly so nowadays people have a deep distrust for “politicians” and although it seems to be becoming more apparent why, it’s not a new idea. Since the invention of government people have disagreed with what they say, the actions they take and the expensive wallpaper they spend our taxes on. So when the issue of war with Iraq came up, the public were sceptical of what the politicians were saying.

    “We have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist networks...” that’s what was said. They “believe” that he had them, despite having millions of pounds and dollars invested in secret security that could read a newspaper headline off a street in New York from space. They couldn’t actually find them; they just believed he had them. That was really going to go down well with the CND and anti-war supporters who weren’t big fans in the first place.

    It was dangerous, they could increase tax, annoy us by making us spend 6 pence extra a year. They could invest in more speed cameras, loading us with fines but they were talking about taking troops into battle, people’s partners, parents and children and make them cannon fodder for this monster the media and government had created. That was really going to go down well wasn’t it?

    So when public support wasn’t as high as they’d wanted it was blamed on the media, the BBC poisoning the British public with their consciousness objectors’ beliefs. They painted a picture of our political system as corruption and heresy. It just wasn’t “British” (or European, or whatever club Tony Blair wanted to join that week).

    The media, in the interest of “educating” the people and increasing circulation highlighted the downfalls of the government and questioned every choice they made. (If it’s not hard enough controlling a country and preparing for a war you have to have the world’s press on your back as well!)

    So who was to blame for trust in politicians taking a dive? Was it the government themselves? The government are very good at digging holes for themselves, but they are just as corrupt, possibly less, than hundreds of years ago. They have to be more careful because of the press watching their every move. The media? The media would be one of the obvious suspects. Digging up anything to sell papers, but the papers wouldn’t say anything untrue. There are laws; they can’t print anything that was just made up? What about the public? With threats of terrorism, Al-Qaeda and other unspeakable terrors fuelled by both the government and media no wonder we were losing trust in those that control us. To a certain extent the media were to blame for the diminished trust in politicians, but they could only be guilty for placing the evidence into the public domain for us to make our own assumptions.
    i think it is a good piece...particularly the beginning....very snappy and punchy
    very well written though....
    the only thing i would say is that you have used digging twice in the last paragraph..you may have meant to do that- its fine but thats the only thing i would change
    great job!! you will sail through your interview!!
    whats it for, your interview i mean??

    xx
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you!!! I have to give rep out to one of you tomorrow. The angle I'm going for is The Sun end of the market, though it's hard to distinguish as if you look at The Times comment they are just as colloquial.
    As for the taking a dig at the media that's what confused me about the question. Why would a journalism degree essay want me to take a dig at the media when they are the *******s who are going to be paying me? However, I thought I had better balance it out as to avoid any pitfalls.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The interview is for the London Institute and I have to make a VERY good impression because this is a second chance as my original letter went AWOL. So they very kindly gave me a second chance, it's my first choice and I don't want to blow it!

    Oh and Ruthie,
    "Wherever I am, there's always Pooh, there's always Pooh and me. Whatever I do, he wants to do, "Where are you going today," says Pooh, "Well that's very odd cuz I was too. Let's go together," says Pooh, says he, "let's go together" says Pooh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    This is my 500 word comment piece I've been working on for my interview this friday (ok so i got up at 8am and just wrote it, that's NOT cheating) and it's EXACTLY 500 words. Any thoughts or opinions I'd love them!

    In the light of the reporting leadng up to the war with Iraq, to what extent are the media to blame for the diminishing trust people are said to have in politicians?

    Politicians lie, fact. Along with, people die, Santa doesn’t exist and Jim won’t fix it for you. Increasingly so nowadays people have a deep distrust for “politicians” and although it seems to be becoming more apparent why, it’s not a new idea. Since the invention of government people have disagreed with what they say, the actions they take and the expensive wallpaper they spend our taxes on. So when the issue of war with Iraq came up, the public were sceptical of what the politicians were saying.

    “We have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist networks...” that’s what was said. They “believe” that he had them, despite having millions of pounds and dollars invested in secret security that could read a newspaper headline off a street in New York from space. They couldn’t actually find them; they just believed he had them. That was really going to go down well with the CND and anti-war supporters who weren’t big fans in the first place.

    It was dangerous, they could increase tax, annoy us by making us spend 6 pence extra a year. They could invest in more speed cameras, loading us with fines but they were talking about taking troops into battle, people’s partners, parents and children and make them cannon fodder for this monster the media and government had created. That was really going to go down well wasn’t it?

    So when public support wasn’t as high as they’d wanted it was blamed on the media, the BBC poisoning the British public with their consciousness objectors’ beliefs. They painted a picture of our political system as corruption and heresy. It just wasn’t “British” (or European, or whatever club Tony Blair wanted to join that week).

    The media, in the interest of “educating” the people and increasing circulation highlighted the downfalls of the government and questioned every choice they made. (If it’s not hard enough controlling a country and preparing for a war you have to have the world’s press on your back as well!)

    So who was to blame for trust in politicians taking a dive? Was it the government themselves? The government are very good at digging holes for themselves, but they are just as corrupt, possibly less, than hundreds of years ago. They have to be more careful because of the press watching their every move. The media? The media would be one of the obvious suspects. Digging up anything to sell papers, but the papers wouldn’t say anything untrue. There are laws; they can’t print anything that was just made up? What about the public? With threats of terrorism, Al-Qaeda and other unspeakable terrors fuelled by both the government and media no wonder we were losing trust in those that control us. To a certain extent the media were to blame for the diminished trust in politicians, but they could only be guilty for placing the evidence into the public domain for us to make our own assumptions.
    I hope you don't mind, I have changed some words, if you don't like it, please just ignore it!!

    Increasingly, nowadays people have a deep distrust for “politicians” and although it seems to be becoming more apparent why, it’s not a new idea. Since the invention of government, people have become disillusioned with this institution and their expectations are not being met. Their behaviour and the millions wasted by their own propaganda machines and hidden agendas. So when the issue of war with Iraq came up, the public were sceptical of what the politicians were saying.

    “We have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist networks...” that’s what was said. They “believe” that he had them, despite having millions of pounds and dollars invested in secret security that could read a newspaper headline off a street in New York from space. They couldn’t actually find them; they just had suspicion he had them. That was really going to go down well with the CND and anti-war supporters who weren’t big fans in the first place.

    It was dangerous, they could increase tax, annoy us by making us spend six pence extra a year. They could invest in more speed cameras, loading us with fines but they were talking about taking troops into battle, people’s partners, parents and children and make them cannon fodder for this monster the media and government had created. That was really going to go down well wasn’t it?

    So when public support wasn’t as high as they had wanted it was blamed on the media, the BBC poisoning the British public with their consciousness objectors’ beliefs. They painted a picture of our political system as corruption and heresy. It just wasn’t “British” (or European, or whatever club Tony Blair wanted to join that week).

    The media, in the interest of “educating” the people and increasing circulation highlighted the downfalls of the government and questioned every choice they made. (If it’s not hard enough controlling a country and preparing for a war you have to have the world’s press on your back as well!)

    So who was to blame for trust in politicians taking a dive? Was it the government themselves? The government are very good at endorsing one policy one week, only to retract it later on because it might lose them valuable scoring points in the next election. Politicians have to be e careful because of the press watching their every move. The media? The media would be one of the obvious suspects. Digging up anything to sell papers, but the papers wouldn’t say anything untrue – would they? There are laws; they can’t print anything that was just made up? What about the public? With threats of terrorism, Al-Qaeda and other unspeakable terrors fuelled by both the government and media no wonder we were losing trust in those that control us. To a certain extent the media were to blame for the diminished trust in politicians, but they could only be guilty for placing the evidence into the public domain for us to make our own assumptions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Well I don't like the deletion of the first sentence, that was the hook. However I did like this sentence "The government are very good at endorsing one policy one week, only to retract it later on because it might lose them valuable scoring points in the next election" but I need to dumb it down a bit, my target audience is "The Sun" readers, so I need it to be colloquial as I can get when dealing with politics!
    Thank you!
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    It was dangerous, they could increase tax, annoy us by making us spend 6 pence extra a year. They could invest in more speed cameras, loading us with fines but they were talking about taking troops into battle, people’s partners, parents and children and make them cannon fodder for this monster the media and government had created. That was really going to go down well wasn’t it?
    I thought this paragraph seemed a little wooly - the first bit especially...might be better if you were a bit more specific about the other risks governments take (ie use one instead of talking around it with tax increases/6p extra/speed cameras etc etc) and how they pale into insignificance when lives are on the line (?)

    the BBC poisoning the British public with their consciousness objectors’ beliefs
    Consciousness or concientious?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    Well I don't like the deletion of the first sentence, that was the hook. However I did like this sentence "The government are very good at endorsing one policy one week, only to retract it later on because it might lose them valuable scoring points in the next election" but I need to dumb it down a bit, my target audience is "The Sun" readers, so I need it to be colloquial as I can get when dealing with politics!
    Thank you!
    Fair enough, if it is aimed at Sun readers you don't need to make it too formal. I am glad there was something that was useful.

    Good luck - you'll go down a storm.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I thought this paragraph seemed a little wooly - the first bit especially...might be better if you were a bit more specific about the other risks governments take (ie use one instead of talking around it with tax increases/6p extra/speed cameras etc etc) and how they pale into insignificance when lives are on the line (?)
    Thanks
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Consciousness or concientious?
    :-( I don't know
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    Thanks


    :-( I don't know
    Consciousness means awake-ness/aware-ness...the people who protested against the world wars through not going when called were concientious objectors which I think was what you were alluding to?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It's the second one!
    Thank you!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I thought this paragraph seemed a little wooly - the first bit especially...might be better if you were a bit more specific about the other risks governments take (ie use one instead of talking around it with tax increases/6p extra/speed cameras etc etc) and how they pale into insignificance when lives are on the line (?)


    Consciousness or concientious?
    Your'e right, I didn't spot it - it should be concientious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    How about this

    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    It was dangerous territory. They could increase tax, annoy us by making us spend six pence extra a year. They could invest in more speed cameras but they were talking about taking troops into battle, people’s lives. Partners, parents, children and make them cannon fodder for this monster the media and government had created. Was it really worth it for something that was believed?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    The interview is for the London Institute and I have to make a VERY good impression because this is a second chance as my original letter went AWOL. So they very kindly gave me a second chance, it's my first choice and I don't want to blow it!

    Oh and Ruthie,
    "Wherever I am, there's always Pooh, there's always Pooh and me. Whatever I do, he wants to do, "Where are you going today," says Pooh, "Well that's very odd cuz I was too. Let's go together," says Pooh, says he, "let's go together" says Pooh

    yay!!!

    i love winnie the pooh!!! and piglet!!!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Push
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruthiepoothie)
    yay!!!

    i love winnie the pooh!!! and piglet!!!!!
    Did you know Tigger wasn't even in the original book!!?!?!?!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.