Hey! Hope it's not too late to join This AN language analysis club is actually such an ingenious idea!!! I think it's gonna be one of the best resources on this already amazing forum.
Okay so here goes, please be harsh and criticise to your heart's content
Thanks again for this awesome opportunity
- Liz Following the rise of media coverage on climate change and subsequently climate change denial, in a short article titled “Please turn off the alarm”, Dieter Liebrich contends with a scathing and sarcastic tone that instead of avoiding the pressing issue of climate change, action must be taken to protect Earth. The use of a visual complements the author, promoting his point of view through a different format and fortifying his arguments.
By likening media coverage of climate change to that of an alarm, Liebrich begins by mocking the situation where authorities are treating climate change as an “alarm”, something that can be turned off and in human’s control. Contrasted with words of destruction such as “burning”, “bleaching”, the author juxtaposes the everydayness and normality of an alarm clock with the devastating outcomes of climate change denial, further emphasising it’s absurdity to the audience and sways them to the author’s point of view. The connotations of the phrases “drought” and “flood” paints an imagery of natural disaster, creating a sense of urgency and appealing to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that natural disaster may happen if no action is taken, whilst highlighting the direness of the situation.
Through the use of strong language, Liebrich continues to denigrate authority for their disbelief and reluctance to take action against climate change. The connotations of the phrases such as “stick our heads deeper in the sand”, “useless” and “dismantle” all suggest to the audience that the authority is incompetent and is not addressing the issue effectively. Associating the act of burying one’s head in sand with climate change denial, Liebrich attacks authorities in charge, suggesting that instead of taking appropriate action, they are avoiding the inevitable and instead worsening the crisis. This positions the audience to distrust authority, whilst strengthening the author’s contention. The use of a provocative question packed with sarcasm also consolidates the author’s point of view, suggesting that the problem will disappear if media reportage is stopped, once again accentuating the illogicalness of climate change denial.
The use of an accompanying image positions the audience to share the author’s viewpoint that avoiding and denying climate change is not a solution, simultaneously stressing the urgency of the issue. Depicting a well-dressed man in formal wear whose head is buried under sand in what is seen to be a desert, the vast and empty background evoking a sense of despair and fear in the audience. The empty desert appeals once again to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that there is a possibility that this may possibly be the outcome of climate change denial in the future, if no action was to be taken. The man, symbolising the government and authority, is portrayed in an almost comical light, which underscores the idiocy of their actions in terms of their reluctance to accept the truth.
Throughout this short article, Dieter Liebrich employs a variety of language to appeal to the many different emotions of the audience. The use of a visual complements his arguments and allows the audience to see the relevance and logic of their contention. In doing so, the audience is able to be swayed towards Liebrich’s contention that climate change denial is absurd and is jeopardising the future of our planet, and that action must be taken instead of avoiding the issue.