Analysing a Media Article

By

Michael Simpson
The article titled Ebola Screening at Heathrow is Blasted as a Joke on
First Day as Passengers Arriving from Africa Reveal: We could have
walked straight through, was published on the 15 th October 2014, by the
Daily Mail through the Australia branch. This article is depicting an
alarmist view about the British Governments ability to protect the public
from the threat of the Ebola virus. The perspective of selected passengers,
arriving from countries identified with a high Ebola risk, has been
represented in this article to criticise the British Governments and
Heathrow Airports efforts to protect passengers and the general public
from the spread of this disease. The severity of this disease and the
importance of containing the disease are equated with another feared
disease, AIDS. The threat of this disease is strengthened through the use
of a broad range of statistics. In this article the effort of the British
Government and Heathrow Airport to control this disease is displayed in a
negative light by the use of use of captivating images, headlines and
subheadings, the organisation and the representation of subject matter,
and linguistic features.
The article uses the headline to depict Englands Ebola precautions as
inadequate. In addition, images and eight different subheadings further
represent these alleged inadequacies by highlighting the difference
between Heathrows screening process and other at risk countries. The
headline of this article ridicules Heathrow airports attempts and
highlights a lack of urgency in their response. This is done with the use of
highly suggestive quotes regarding the incompetence of the screening
process. For example, in the headline Heathrows screening process is
described as a joke which foregrounds the passengers perspective on
this matter. This is further elaborated by the extended use of the
convention of subheadings to provide a summary of salient points of the
article using statistics and quotes. The first subheading identifies
Heathrow Airports lack of management of passengers from high risk

countries with Ebola who were apparently not checked for this disease,
stating passengers arriving from West Africa walked through unchecked.
This is followed by subheadings portraying the views of the World Health
Organisations (WHO) and the British government on this disease,
expressing the importance of the screening process To make our country
safe. Finally, statistics are used in the remaining subheadings to create
perceived factual information on the severity the disease for the reader.
This is illustrated by the claim More than 4,000 people have died from a
total of 8,914 worldwide cases. This statistic is used to add authority and
promote fear of the disease, however, it fails to highlight that the majority
of these deaths occurred in less economically developed countries. The
representation of inadequate screening processes at Heathrow airport is
further foregrounded through the use of images. The first three images,
which take up the whole page, display the steps of the screening process
at Heathrow Airport. The first image depicts a plain clothes Public Health
officer in close proximity to the passenger. He is using a hand held
thermometer to measure the passengers temperature. The Health Officer
is not wearing gloves, a mask or any form of protective clothing. The
screening is conducted in a large room which appears to be set up for
simultaneous screenings. The Ebola Health Assessment form (Image 2)
appears to be administered in the same room as the medical screening
(Image 1). This indicates there is no separation between people who
identify themselves on the form as high risk with those identified as low
risk. The photos that follow consist of passengers who have returned from
Africa, with the featured participants all portraying body language and
expression that suggests they are unimpressed and worried with the
screening process. These images are contrasted with the earlier images
depicting the level of precaution undertaken by other countries with their
screening process. An excessive number of photos (twenty-one in total)
are used to further highlight these differences and increase the distrust
that the reader has in the governments efforts to protect them. Distrust
with the government and the airport management to protect the public is
further foregrounded through the organisation of the article.

The organisation of this article along with the structure, positions the
reader to accept the intended dominant reading. For example, the
sequencing of information promotes the dominant position that the
screening process for Ebola at Heathrow is lacking in the level of security
that is needed to protect passengers and the United Kingdom as a whole.
This is seen by the use of a comparative technique highlighting the
difference of the screening process at Heathrow and other countries. The
article begins by discussing Heathrows screening process with quotes
from the passengers who have just arrived. One passenger who had been
screened at Gambia said she was not even asked where she had flown in
from. The article uses an extensive array of facts about Ebola obtained
from health organisations, stating the death rate has now reached 70%.
This creates a sense of authority and elicits trust from the readers.
Authority of the information is further promoted by reporting the
viewpoints of a passenger who is a film maker on a documentary about
Ebola. Discussing the screening process at Heathrow, this film maker
stated Having seen it first hand I think it was a bit lax here. To be honest
it was a complete joke.

This increases the readers confidence in the

reliability of the information provided, although there is no indication of

the level of knowledge the film maker has on this topic. Through these
sources the article provides further evidence that countries that are less
economically developed are taking more precautions then Heathrow
making the reader doubt the ability of the British Government and
Heathrow Airport management. The Heathrow Airport management is the
marginalised group with no representation in this article. By their silence
the dominant voice is uncontested. The organisation of the article along
with the structure foregrounds the travelling publics opinion. The use of
the passengers comments provides the reader with an identifiable
opinion. This supports the dominant reading which is further enhanced by
the use of linguistic features.
The linguistic features used in this article promote the authority of the
information which supports the dominant reading, that government is
unable to protect the United Kingdom against Ebola. This is seen through

the use of non-emotive language, evocative phases and lexical chains. For
example, the use of statistics provides facts using objective language to
provide a level of certainty to the information. The quotes and statistics
are from high level members of prestigious Health organisations, including
the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations which helps
foreground the discourse of Health and how the main issue is being
discussed. This adds authority to the information and helps to promote
trust within the reader for the invited reading. These quotes and statistics
also add to the fear generated by the article by connecting the reader to
the apparent seriousness of the problem. Examples of this include
statements such as, This is screening process is needed to make our
country safe. This focuses the readers on the low level caution present in
the screening process by using noun groups along with the processes and
attributes of the screening process. This is seen mostly in the beginning of
the article. The noun groups include calling the screening process The
system which is connected with attributes such as A complete joke and
I could have walked straight through assists in forming the readers
opinion of the Heathrow low level screening process as lacking in its ability
to detect the disease. Therefore, the use of the linguistic features in this
article foregrounds the issues with the Heathrow screening process while
positioning the reader to view the governments screening process lacking
ability to protect the United Kingdom from Ebola.
The dominant reading of the article published by the Daily Mail on the 15th
of October 2014 is the incapacity of the British government and the
management at Heathrow Airport to protect the British population from
Ebola. This viewpoint is achieved by the use of captions, subheadings,
headlines, the organisation and structure and the linguistic features
incorporated into this article. These features generate an attitude of
authority making the information appear reliable. The use of passengers
personal experiences provides the reader with an identifiable opinion. In
contrast, the management team at Heathrow Airport are marginalised. By
their silence the dominant reading is accepted.