A Critical Analysis of
The Guardian

On June 9, 2025, the British newspaper, The Guardian, released an article titled “Peru drops plan to shrink protected area around Nazca Lines archaeological site.” The article discusses how and why the government of Peru decided to drop their plan to decrease the area of protected Nazca Lines. When I initially read the article, it seemed relatively straight forward. Looking at it from surface level, it seems to be solely informative. The article starts with an overview of what’s occurring: the Peruvian government changed their mind on a decision they had made because of backlash. It then goes on to explain why they were receiving backlash, as well as cited some sources relating to the situation. I didn’t notice many apparent biases. However, when you start to dive deeper, you start to notice subtle biases within the text that went unnoticed before a thorough analysis.

The way the article is written paints the Peruvian government in a critical light. The majority of the text focuses on the significance of the protected area, as well as the negative consequences that would’ve occurred if the government had decided to go through with their original decision. We’re given little context as to why the government initially wanted to shrink the area of land protected. The article only provides a 3-word quote from the government, saying that the decision was based on data that found other places had “real patrimonial value.” Simply put, the government used an unknown metric to locate places with more historical significance. This makes the government seem as though it’s picking-and-choosing what land is deemed as culturally significant and worth protecting. Although the article is about how the government decided to listen to the people, they highly emphasize how the reversal only happened due to extreme backlash.

Some of the language chosen in this piece helps to highlight the minor, most-likely unintentional, biases present. This can especially be seen when the article describes the location being impacted. When describing the area around the Nazca Lines, the article uses descriptors and specific data to put emphasis on the cultural significance of the site. Although the word choice itself doesn’t seem biased, the information they’re choosing to include could impact how the audience views the situation. The only time word choice impacts the slant of the article is when mining is brought up. Depending on the context of the sentence, the article switches between “informal mining” and “illegal mining;” which are words with two very different connotations. The words used in this article, not only work to create discourse against the Peruvian government, but also help shine a light on Peruvian heritage and the protection of indigenous history.

It is evident as to why this occurrence was selected to be a news story. Not only does the article highlight a win for archeologists and conservationists, but it also utilizes three different news values. First, we have negativity. Even though the article frames the government’s change-of-mind as a positive, a large chunk of the text focuses on the illegal mining that occurs in the area around the Nazca Lines that has already been protected. It also elaborates on how it would only be exacerbated if the protected land area was reduced. The article also deals with the topic of eliteness, as its main focus is on a powerful entity; in this case, the government of a country.

The news value that I think best represents the article, though, is unexpectedness. As an American in the status quo, it is difficult for me to imagine a government reversing a decision from backlash alone. Although the article doesn’t provide specifics about the severity of the backlash, I noted that I didn’t even hear about the Peruvian government’s decision until I read the article. At the same time, we are seeing millions of Americans going out and protesting against their government at record-breaking rates, just for their wants and needs to be ignored. From a personal and American standpoint, it is unexpected to see a government go back on a decision like that; especially one that was most likely made for financial purposes.

There is also a lot of information missing from this article. It features only two direct quotes, a brief one from the government as aforementioned, and one from a former culture minister and archaeologist, saying the area was already “infested with illegal mining and mineral processing plants.” Not only do we not get in-depth context behind the government’s reasoning, the only other quote provided is from someone who’s studied the markings and is clearly going to have a bias towards them. In addition, I think it’s interesting how we don’t hear anything from any Peruvians or locals in the area. The primary topic of the article is how the government rescinded a decision due to backlash, however, we are given no direct quotes from the critics providing said backlash.

The Guardian tends to be a more left-leaning news outlet, and after dissecting the article, it slightly shows. Besides the critique of Peru’s federal government, the article makes it a priority to highlight the significance of the culture and tradition of the protected area around the Nazca Lines archaeological site. If this topic was covered by a more right-leaning outlet, the approach potentially would’ve been different. It likely would be discussing the economic impacts of the government's decision more, rather than the historic and traditional impacts. The Guardian’s article also briefly notes how gold prices are peaking, which is causing more people to seek out informal gold mining. A more conservative platform might’ve honed in on the profitability and logistics behind that aspect of it.

After analyzing the article, my perception definitely changed. I would say I still have the same opinion towards the situation, I think it is important to protect historical sites. If we don’t, so much of history can become lost and muddled. I think it’s interesting how, upon my first read, I noticed hardly any biases present in the text. As I kept writing this paper and rereading the article, though, I kept noticing little details that I had glossed over before. What stuck out to me the most was the lack of insight from the people from and around the impacted area. It got me thinking. Were their voices purposely excluded? Do they perhaps rely on this ‘illegal’ mining to survive? We have no idea, because their existence isn’t included in the article at all.

Even though, after analysis, you could tell the article was slightly more left leaning, I think it did an overall good job at remaining impartial. The bottom line is, if something is man-made, there is absolutely no way for it to be completely unbiased because there is no such thing as a 100% opinionated individual. I also believe that, even if the organization does a good job of remaining centered, it is important to think critically and point out where you see slip-ups. After this assignment, I will definitely be able to notice slight slants in the media I consume that I would’ve missed before.