Andy Burnham's government risks backlash after approving controversial migrant housing plans
Findings are available in the analysis below.3 findings
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article reports near the top the residents' warning that the men would pose a significant threat to women. It does not report that a government minister, speaking on LBC that morning, said a similarly sized site at Wethersfield had not seen the impacts being described at Piddington. Without this a reader may take the safety warning as unanswered.
We do not republish articles from Daily Star. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Daily Star runs Press Association copy on the approval of the Piddington asylum site. It mostly attributes claims to the people who made them and gives the government's reply. In its own voice it adds loaded words, rubber-stamped and desperate, and it prints the shadow home secretary's figure of 1,500 "illegal migrants" with no correction beside it, though its own copy says 1,256 and calls them detained asylum seekers. It reports the warning that the men threaten local women but leaves out a minister's same-morning answer that a similar site had not seen such impacts.
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“rubber-stamped”
Why this matters
In its own voice the Daily Star says the government "rubber-stamped" the plans.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it that the approval was automatic, with no real consideration of objections.
The context
The article's own facts describe a grant of full planning permission. The Home Office says no final decision to go ahead has been taken. The claim that objections were ignored belongs to the local MP and should be attributed to him.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“a final decision to proceed is yet to be taken”
Elsewhere in the article“had been "simply ignored"”
“in a desperate attempt”
Why this matters
The outlet calls the parish council's symbolic independence vote "a desperate attempt" in its own voice.
The impression it gives
A reader comes away with the residents' sense of being cornered as the outlet's own judgement of events.
The context
The article's facts describe a symbolic protest. Other outlets report it plainly as a symbolic referendum.
The outlet prints Chris Philp's figure of 1,500 and his description of the men as "illegal migrants", and sets nothing against either.
The impression it gives
A reader may take away a larger number than is planned, and that the people housed there are illegal migrants.
The context
The article's own copy gives the number as 1,256. It describes the people as detained asylum seekers.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“accommodation for 1,256 male migrants”
Elsewhere in the article“converted for detained asylum seekers”
Leaves out what changes the picture
Minor
What is missing
The article reports near the top the residents' warning that the men would pose a significant threat to women. It does not report that a government minister, speaking on LBC that morning, said a similarly sized site at Wethersfield had not seen the impacts being described at Piddington. Without this a reader may take the safety warning as unanswered.