How Far Do the Sources Suggest That the British Press Were Divided in Their Attitude to the Campaigns of the Suffrage Movement in the Years 1908 – 1913? (Explain Answer Using the Evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3?)

488 Words2 Pages
How far do the sources suggest that the British press were divided in their attitude to the campaigns of the suffrage movement in the years 1908 – 1913? (Explain answer using the evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3?) Between the years 1908 to 1913, the British press were divided in terms of attitude to the campaigns of the suffrage movement to a great extent. The three sources provide segments from British publications from various newspapers or magazines during the time. They prove that the attitude was in fact divided as the British media mostly displayed a critical approach towards the campaigns of the suffrage movement. The titles of the two publications from source 1 suggest they would be bought and read by the working-class audience; both being “Illustrated” and the other only a ‘Penny’ to purchase. Therefore this would suggest the content written within these newspapers is the general view of ordinary people, rather than the upper class. Source 1 is supportive, stressing how “all classes of women” were present in this “remarkable” march, and how it attracted many sightseers. It quotes an “enthusiastic” but anonymous reporter as being favourably impressed by the protest march. These two articles give the impression that the British press was not entirely so critical of the campaigns for women suffrage; this source provides evidence in which it shows support and positive commentary on the matter. However, when compared to other forms of the press during the time, it reinforces the issue of the British press being divided in terms of their attitude towards the campaigns. Source 2 presents a different attitude towards the suffrage’s campaigns as it is more critical. The tone of the article is of firm disapproval for “law breaking” and disorder as the magazine deems it as “unfit for politics”. The publication, a ‘Conservative Party support’, would not exactly
Open Document