Introduction
This
article entitled « And here's why it matters : For first
time 1 million youngsters are not in work or education » was
published in the Daily Mail newspaper in November of 2011. The names
of the two journalists who wrote this piece are provided (Jason
Groves and Kate Loveys), and based on the reputation of the Daily
Mail, we can assume that they are probably not left leaning. The
Daily Mail is generally considered to be a conservative paper, and it
is a best selling tabloid sold across the United Kingdom. This
article deals with the subject of the increasing amount of young who
are neither working nor studying, we can count them as 1 million in
England which is worst than what had been recorded since 19 years
ago. However, in England historically your leaving school age is at
16 but you must stay in some form of education or training until your
18th
birthday. Young people are more and more in the dole because they do
not work, study or train, they have passed the one million in the UK
which is a real contemporary scourge that is why the government is
trying to set up solutions to help decrease the amount of young
unemplouyment. The main justifications cited in the article are that
1, the young are NEET which means that they are Not Employed, into
Education nor Training, and 2, government is taking one billion to
take thousands of youngsters out from the dole queue.
Analysis
- Content
The article is
divided into fourth different sections. The first includes the
introduction, as well as figures in order to give credibility to the
arguments of the journalists. The introductory information tells us
that for the first time one million of unemployed young people has
been passed and that about a fifth of 18-24 year-olds is now becoming
a NEET. Also, we learn that one in seven 16- to 18-year-olds is on
the dole. Then, we understand that ministers as they were stung by
claims, they decided to keep one billion to try decreasing this awful
amount of young disemployment but only to a thousands. Here, we jump
into the second part of the article which is also the longest part
since it bring information about the many solutions setting up by the
government to enhance young employment in the job market. Thus, if a
young is not working for a period of more than six months and that he
is being employed, the employers will be offered subsidies worth
£2,275 to encourage them taking 160,000 youngsters. The subsidies
will however help the employers to half of the cost o the young
employed which represents the youth minimum wage, for six months. It
is said that employers need an incentive to priviledge the young
besides the better-qualified immigrants. The government replied by
taking an advantage of £1,500 a time to create an additionnal 20,000
apprenticeships. The article then goes with its third part more
dealing about the consequences ; if ever a young does not sign
the new « youth contract » which implied them to accept
the proposition of a job or work experience then they will be put
under mandatory work activity such as litter picking or face losing
their benefits. At the end of the article a full passage is
compounded with people's thoughts about this new solutions discussed
by the British government. A director general of the Confederation of
British Industry, John Cridland, stated that it will encourage firms
to employ unexperienced young and tackle the youth unemployment
scourge. The journalists give also the thoughts of the Labour which
as for it, the project is a « pale imitation » of its own
« future jobs fund » which has been dismissed because it
was judged a waste of money. Government therefore believes that it
would have better result than the Labour project since it touches
private sector employers. Experts also revealed that immigrants are
more working than the lost generation of the youth and blamed it on
the tough job market and budget cuts in education. Finally, the
Department for Education shows that 1,02 million 16- to 24-year-olds
are looking for a job a figure that comes a week after this of the
Government.
- Critical analysis
Furthermore, it
can be said that the bias of the journalist who is in favour of the
government ideas is noticeable within this article. To give a primary
example, the text uses repetition since it only gives power to the
ministers (so the government) solutions found and discussed to help
the young. Also, this admiration of the journalists is moreover
important as it discredits the Labour party ideas and shows its
powerless function for example the only reference to it , illustrates
it as a critical party which project has been dismissed «
Labour dismissed the initiative as a pale imitation of its own
« future jobs fund », which was scrapped by Coalition
last year as a waste of money. » the fact that it has been
rejected by this justification is furthermore a mean to mock it,
discredit it by the journalists intervention. Thus, the journalists
dare say in the following sentence of this article that the
Government believes in the potential of the new deal better than in
the former initiative of the Labour which is a repetition of mockery
towards the Labour. The journalists bias is quite relevant in the
second part since they declare that immigrants are priviledged by
employers and this idea is given twice since the last part says :
« foreigners landed a job in Britain every day over the past
year while the number of UK-born workers plunged. » it is
obviously a patriotic argument, the foreigners are stealing the jobs
of the British in other word according to the journalists
expression.The authors also provide statistics to give credit to the
Government solutions which is clearly a way of giving their point of
view and to make the readers join their right-wing views. We know
that the article is from the DailyMaily newspaper and that it has a
tendency to be considered as a Conservative newspaper which must be
the reasons of this.
Discussion
In conclusion,
the article raises several issues. First, the youth unemployment is a
real scourge within England with a total of one million of young out
of a job and education. Furthermore, the journalists seek to explain
the different solutions found to help this amount of youth crisis to
decrease by taking a clear opposition towards the Labour ideas and by
discredited it. The author comes to a conclusion that the government
is enthusiastic with the potential of the new deal passed and this
despite the large sum of money which is going to use in a way to
enhance the employmentship of youngsters within the United-Kingdom.
Some people
within England may well have similar views to the journalists which
mean that to them the young cause is far more important than other
British scourge and that this amount of unemployment is to be
balanced by government. However, other people will oppose this idea
because they do not figure in the same category than the young but
still are looking for a job and are angry with the government
abandonment on them. As for instance people from 30- to 60-year-olds
who are not mentioned by the government new deal or immigrants who
have good qualifications but are going to be put backwards in favour
of the employment of the young unqualified. The important factor to
consider that an article referring a topic such as this will always
divide opinion within the general public as it is such a
controversial issue.
In my opinion, I
believe that if the youth cause matters the government is a good
point since they are the future of the country and have to be helped
and followed. Myself as a young, I think that this scourge is due to
orientation issue rather than laziness from the young. If the new
deal might function I rather think that it will lead to hatred from
those who are going to be the new victims of unemploymentships. There
is no doubt that this newspaper article is bound to divide the
nation, and it is for this reason why I have found it so intiguing to
share my thoughts on this article with you.
