Factual writing, task 1

FACTUAL WRITING, TASK 1

Jess Britton

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.

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.

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.