Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 28, 2024, 09:57:34 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 9  (Read 8962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
[2016 LA Club] Week 9
« on: April 20, 2016, 06:19:50 pm »
+1
Okay, so,, technically there are FOUR texts to deal with this week, but before you all yell at me - they're limited to 140 characters each!

As a modern update on ye olde Letters to the Editor, we're going to look at some Twitter tweets and analyse how these authors attempt to communicate their contentions as succinctly as possible. There'll be a particular challenge in pinpointing the contentions here since you don't have much to go on, but this'll be a great little exercise for those of you who need help with articulating the author's point.

Background: This year, TV presenter Waleed Aly was nominated for a Gold Logie Award. Following his nomination, the Sydney-based newspaper 'The Daily Telegraph' argued in an opinion piece that Aly was only nominated because of his race and the fact that the Logie Awards selection committee were trying to seem more diverse. Therefore, according to the newspaper, Aly was undeserving of the nomination and the award. Radio host and comedian Tom Ballard responded to this piece on Twitter after its publication. His tweet is here accompanied by various other responses from members of the public.

Original tweet from Tom Ballard:


Response from Joanna Lazar:


Response from Morgan Levick:


Response from Emily O'Shannessy:

 
edit: you don't have to say anything about the profile pictures accompanying each tweet, nor should you discuss number of retweets/favourites - those are just the markings of the format so aren't really "persuasive" in this context :)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 05:38:40 pm by literally lauren »

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2016, 06:21:04 pm »
0
Aren't we up to Week 9 not 10?  ???

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2016, 06:23:24 pm »
0
Aren't we up to Week 9 not 10?  ???
Ssshhhh you saw nothing  :-X

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2016, 08:51:46 pm »
0
1

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2016, 08:52:27 pm »
0
not sure what that is ^^
but anyways

In response to an opinion piece published in ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Radio host Tom Bollard has presented an opposing view, claiming that The Daily Telegraph’s reasoning in regards to the nomination of ‘Waleed Aly’ was not due to ‘race’ and increasing cultural diversity, and that ‘The Daily Telegraph’ has misinterpreted the situation. In a mocking tone, Bollard uses capitalization of of his first sentence, ‘6 Reasons Why Daily Tele..’ to place emphasis on his opening statement, positioning the reader to feel obligated to take his views seriously. Furthermore, Bollard’s use of numerical listing aims to show that ‘The Daily Telegraphs’ contention is simplistic and narrow, alerting the audience of that the newspaper lacks thoughtful and logical reasoning, posiitong the readers to take the article as disingenuous and lacking credibility. In addition, comments from Joanna Lazar, Morgan Levick and Emily O’Shannessy further scrutinize both the newspaper article and Bollard’s tweet, aiming to make the readers re-evaluate both pieces, and form their own  viewpoint from holistic understanding.

-unfinished, but i feel like i’m doing absolutely horrible in Language Analysis, and i have a sac real soon :/ any tips? Is this essay around at least a 5/10 atm? Really struggling to express myself and talk about tones in a relevant manner to the criteria of Language Analysis :(((
Thanks guys!!

This was written in about 10 minutes - so probably not my best work but still.. :(

Swagadaktal

  • SwagLordOfAN
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • djkhaled305 is the key to success
  • Respect: +102
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2016, 09:38:35 pm »
0
Ssshhhh you saw nothing  :-X
You know nothing, Jon Snuuu
Fuck you english your eyebrows aren't even good
Why walk when you can stand on the shoulders of giants?

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2016, 06:49:23 pm »
0
Ballard’s tweet employs humour to mock the Daily Telegraph article on why reporter Waleed Aly should not win the Gold Logie. His concise summaries of the newspaper’s original reasons highlights how ludicrous and petty their justification is. He suggests that their only grievances against Aly’s nomination are based on his race; reasons 1, 2 and 3 all reiterate the newspaper’s argument the reporter should not win the award because “he’s brown”. The capitalisation of the final point mocks the newspaper’s argument and depicts them as petty racists with a baseless objection to Aly's nomination. The writer reinforces this notion by “reasons” 4 and 5 which purportedly do not provide for legitimate discussion as to why Aly should not be awarded the Gold Logie. The reader infers the reason “come on” and “no” do not add to the Daily Telegraph’s argument as to why Aly should not win the award. Therein, Ballard seeks undermine the newspaper’s justifications as to why Aly should not be awarded the Gold Logie; he positions his readers to want to distance themselves from the newspaper which he depicts as shamelessly racist.

Similarly, Joanna Lazar and Emily O’Shannessy insinuate the Daily Telegraph’s protest is based on race, by noting his “Muslim” ethnicity and the “colo[ u ]r of his skin”. Therein, these individuals condemn the focus the newspaper places on the colour of Aly’s skin in their article and manoeuvre the audience to similarly reject the newspaper's argument as preposterous. Levick bluntly expands on this argument in his tweet through his suggestion the Daily Telegraph's article showcases why Aly should win the Gold Logie. In doing so, the writer insinuates that anyone who was not racist would reject the Daily Telegraph’s article as baseless and instead embrace Aly’s nomination. This thus challenges the reader to verify they are not xenophobic by supporting Aly.


Not my best piece of work but whatevs.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 06:02:40 pm by HopefulLawStudent »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2016, 08:11:44 pm »
0
Tom Ballard employs satire to critique the Daily Telegraph's opinion piece regarding the idea that Waleed Aly was only nominated, as the Logie Awards selection committee were trying to seem more diverse. Tom Ballard asserts the idea that the Daily Telegraph's article is fueled by racism, through repeating this idea in reason 1, 2 and 6, which all relate to the fact that "he's brown". This use of repitition is used to bring to the reader's attention the racism involved in the article, as well as their lack of reasons for critisising Tom Ballard's nomination, which undermines the Daily Telegraph's credability. This negative portrayal of the Daily Telegraph positions the audience in perceiving the Daily Telegraph unfavourably, making the audience more compliant with his point of view.

Morgan Levick, Jonna Laza and Emily O'Shanessy also reiterate notion that the Daily Telegraph is racist. Levick and Emily O'Shanessy mention that the Daily Telegraph's only reasons for opposing Aly's nomination are "the colour of his skin" and that "he's brown", further highlighting the use of repitition to belittle the Daily Telegraph. Jonna Laza also brings forth a religious stereotype through mentioning that Waleed Aly is "Muslim". Jonna Lazza depicts the Daily Telegraph as narrow minded, through presenting the idea that the Daily Telegraph supports the stereotyped view of muslims as terrorist, which can be seen as ridiculous. These comments continue to undermine the Daily Telegraph, which manouvre's the audience to oppose the Daily Telegraph.

zhen

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • The world is a bitter place
  • Respect: +338
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2016, 08:12:54 pm »
0
The above one is me, i forgot to tick the box

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2016, 05:54:08 pm »
0
Ballard’s tweet employs humour to mock the Daily Telegraph article on why reporter Waleed Aly should not win the Gold Logie. His concise summaries of the newspaper’s original reasons highlights how ludicrous and petty their justification is. He suggests that their only grievances against Aly’s nomination are based on his race; reasons 1, 2 and 3 all reiterate the newspaper’s argument the reporter should not win the award because “he’s brown”. The capitalisation of the final point mocks the newspaper’s argument and depicts them as petty racists with a baseless objection to Aly's nomination v good linking of technique to effect! The writer reinforces this notion by through “reasons” 4 and 5 which purportedly are you trying to say that Ballard is implying these reasons are illegitimate? Because you're right, but you need to do the explanation (i.e. your next sentence analysing the quotes "come on" and "no") before you sum up this effect, ideally do not provide for legitimate discussion as to why Aly should not be awarded the Gold Logie. The reader infers the reason “come on” and “no” do not add to the Daily Telegraph’s argument as to why Aly should not win the award. Therein, Ballard seeks undermine the newspaper’s justifications as to why Aly should not be awarded the Gold Logie bit of repetition here; he positions his readers to want to distance themselves from the newspaper which he depicts as shamelessly racist. good discussion of the intended impact; just a few little issues with the way you're ordering information. Sometimes giving away the effect before clarifying the bit of language that creates said effect can make things rather confusing.

Similarly, Joanna Lazar and Emily O’Shannessy insinuate the Daily Telegraph’s protest is based on race, by noting his “Muslim” ethnicity and the “colo[ u ]r of his skin”. Therein, these individuals condemn the focus the newspaper places on the colour of Aly’s skin in their article and manoeuvre the audience to similarly reject the newspaper's argument as preposterous Good, though I think there's more you can do with these two arguments. Is there a difference between Lazar and O'Shannessy's standpoints? Or are they perhaps using different means to express their opinions? This is allowed to be a fairly short and concise piece, but it's still be good to see you fleshing out some of these discussion points. Levick bluntly expands he's actually refuting their points (see end comments) on this argument in his tweet through his suggestion the Daily Telegraph's article showcases why Aly should win the Gold Logie. In doing so, the writer insinuates that anyone who was not racist would reject the Daily Telegraph’s article as baseless and instead embrace Aly’s nomination. This thus challenges the reader to verify they are not xenophobic by supporting Aly.[/u]

Excellent discussion throughout most of this, though your analysis of the comments could've been a bit clearer. The biggest thing here is that Levick's argument was a little more nuanced: Levick was responding to Ballard's tweet and suggesting that the only reasons why Ballard and others were in support of Aly's nomination was that they wanted to see a "brown" Muslim recieve some commendation. So he's ostensibly implying that Ballard's logic is just as flawed as The Daily Tele's because neither of them are basing their judgements on the merits of Aly's skill, but rather on his physical appearance. According to Levick, the people supporting Aly's nomination are only doing so in a 'positive discrimination' sort of way in that they want him to win because "come on... he's brown." In order to communicate this point, he mirrors Ballard's takedown of The Daily Tele's logic, meaning Levick seeks to make Ballard's position seem as-reductive as Ballard makes The Daily Tele's. Does that make sense?

It can be really hard to discern a contention from, like, 15 words, but in the event you get some really tricky pieces at the end of the year (and ESPECIALLY if they're giving you multiple comments, since they're likely to be shorter and thus harder to pin down) it's worth double checking you've got a handle on these arguments.

That said, if you look at the comments in past VCAA exams (namely the four from 2011 and Dr. Laikis' from 2014) you'll notice that they're really straightforward compared to this week's material. So don't stress too much; I'd be very surprised if the examiners could justify giving you something this complex. But... prepare for the worst, hope for the best!

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2016, 06:04:26 pm »
0
Tom Ballard employs satire to critique the Daily Telegraph's opinion piece regarding the idea that Waleed Aly was only nominated, as the Logie Awards selection committee were trying to seem more diverse. Tom After you use the author's full name the first time, just use their surname from that point onwards Ballard asserts the idea that the Daily Telegraph's article is fueled by racism, through repeating this idea in reason 1, 2 and 6, which all relate to the fact that "he's brown". This use of repitition is used to bring to the reader's attention the racism involved in the article, as well as their lack of reasons can you be more specific here? Because it seems like Ballard is suggesting that they have reasons - they're just not very good reasons :P for criticising Tom Ballard's nomination careful! It's Aly's nomination we're talking about. I can tell what you meant, but these little slip ups can cause temporary confusion for your assessor which might be to your detriment, which undermines the Daily Telegraph's credability. This negative portrayal of the Daily Telegraph positions the audience in perceiving to perceive the Daily Telegraph careful with repetition unfavourably, making the audience more compliant word check; compliant kind of implies they're 'giving in,' but you just want to be focusing on what the author is intending, not how the audience could potentially respond with his point of view.

Morgan Levick, Jonna Laza and Emily O'Shanessy also reiterate notion that the Daily Telegraph is racist. Levick and Emily O'Shanessy grouping all the comments in this manner is a little bit risky, since it means you might end up ignoring some subtle differences between their arguments (see above comments in blue regarding Levick's contention) mention that the Daily Telegraph's only reasons for opposing Aly's nomination are "the colour of his skin" and that "he's brown", further highlighting the use of repitition are the authors highlighting the use of repetition, or just using repetition? to belittle the Daily Telegraph. Jonna Laza also brings forth a religious stereotype through mentioning that Waleed Aly is "Muslim". Jonna Lazza careful with beginning setentences in the same way, as it draws attention to repetitive phrasing depicts the Daily Telegraph as narrow minded, through presenting the idea that the Daily Telegraph supports the stereotyped view of muslims as terrorist, wait, what? Where has this come from?? which can be seen as ridiculous. These comments continue to undermine the Daily Telegraph, which manouvre's the audience to oppose the Daily Telegraph.

Okay, your handling of Ballard's tweet was pretty good, and you seem to have a good system for analysing things. But your discussion of the comments was a little harder to follow. Perhaps try dealing with them one at a time (or even just choosing one or two to focus on - that's fine too) and see how you go linking them to Ballard's arguments. I know this week's material had some tough contentions to deal with (and I'll try and do a few more of these hyper-tricky-argument-pieces so you guys can get enough practice working through them!) but that hurdle of understanding the gist of the author's point is crucial to gaining credit for further analysis.

Also, just watch out for repeat sentence structures or phrases; not a big deal (and it's better that you're repeating yourself than making a bunch of unconnected and unclear points) but something to fine tune as you go :)

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2016, 06:07:10 pm »
0
In response to an opinion piece published in ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Radio host Tom Bollard reeeally minor point, but make sure you spell the author's name right. It'll annoy the fussy markers if you don't, and whilst they're not allowed to deduct marks for something that little, you still don't want them in a bad mood from the outset :P has presented an opposing view, claiming that The Daily Telegraph’s reasoning in regards to the nomination of ‘Waleed Aly’ was not due to ‘race’ and increasing cultural diversity, and that ‘The Daily Telegraph’ has misinterpreted the situation. In a mocking tone, Bollard uses capitalization of of his first sentence, ‘6 Reasons Why Daily Tele..’ to place emphasis on his opening statement, positioning the reader to feel obligated to take his views seriously you're not wrong, but I think 'capitalisation' as a technique would probably be worth avoiding unless an author was writing in ALL CAPS OMG LOOK HOW IMPORTANT THIS SEEMS! Also, if this is your intro, try not to analyse here. Just give a general overview of each piece's contention (or at least cover the main piece and mention that there are a variety of comments with different views) and let your body paragraphs do the rest. Furthermore, Bollard’s use of numerical listing aims to show that ‘The Daily Telegraphs’ contention is simplistic and narrow good!, alerting the audience of that the newspaper lacks thoughtful and logical reasoning, positiong the readers to take bit colloquial the article as disingenuous and lacking credibility. In addition, comments from Joanna Lazar, Morgan Levick and Emily O’Shannessy further scrutinize both the newspaper article and Bollard’s tweet, aiming to make the readers re-evaluate both pieces, and form their own  viewpoint from holistic understanding. this is a bit generic, which would be passable for an intro, but definitely not sufficient if this were an analytical body paragraph. Concluding a point by saying 'this encourages readers to evaluate the issue and form their own holistic understanding' would be way too simple, and I know that's not exactly what you're doing here, but it still pays to be cautious when using these very general phrases.

-unfinished, but i feel like i’m doing absolutely horrible in Language Analysis, and i have a sac real soon :/ any tips? Is this essay around at least a 5/10 atm? Really struggling to express myself and talk about tones in a relevant manner to the criteria of Language Analysis :(((
Thanks guys!!
I'm not sure whether this is designed to be an intro or a B.P. I know the nature of these tasks (esp. this week's material) is different to the kind of stuff you have to deal with in SACs, but it's tough to ascribe a numerical score to something in this case.

If it's an intro, there's a bit too much analysis going on in the middle.

And if it's a body paragraph, then mentioning the comments feels a bit redundant and summative.

What I'd recommend from now on (whether you still have your SAC coming up or not) is that you focus your efforts more so on body paragraphs since that's where more of the marks are. Intros tend to be fairly formulaic recaps like 'Following the recent issue the author name contends in his/her piece title that contention. Also, there are accompanying visuals/comments.' By contrast, your bodies are where the analysis happens, so using these mini-tasks to practice your process of discussing how language is used to persuade is going to be the best use of your time.

In terms of talking about tone, I find the easiest way to do is it to treat tone like its own technique which you analyse and then discuss the impact of. For example, in this week's material, both Lazar and O'Shannessy's tweets were highly sarcastic, so you could consider why they might have adopted that sarcasm in order to achieve a certain effect (e.g. mocking The Daily Tele, undermining the simplicity of its logic, bemoaning the petty nature of their complaints, etc.)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2016, 05:32:04 pm »
0
Ballard mocks the Daily Telegraph’s opinion piece by summarising it in the format of a clickbait article, indicating that the Daily Telegraph is voicing these opinions simply for attention. Thus by evincing the fact that they are willing to disparage another person- Waleed Aly- for their own selfish purposes, Ballard manipulates his audience to view the newspaper as despicable, eliciting outrage from readers. This is extrapolated upon further by the apparent single minded focus on ‘racism’ and the ‘brown’ colour of Waleed Aly’s skin listed as ‘reasons’ for the paper’s opinion, highlighting the lack of substance in Daily Telegraph’s arguments that Waleed Aly is undeserving of the nomination, and thus weakening them. Similarly commented upon by Lazar and O’Shannessy by reminding Ballard to not ‘forget Muslim’ and ‘the colour of [Aly’s] skin’ all these examples given also highlight the Daily Telegraph’s extremely biased and bigoted nature to the audience. The tweet by Levick, plays on Ballard’s and gives another perspective on it, twisting the colour of Aly’s skin into a positive by describing it as ‘awesome’, rather than ‘gross’ as the Daily Telegraph is insinuated to do, subsequently propagating Aly as worthy of his nomination to the audience. As a result, readers are encouraged to disagree with the Daily Telegraph’s article in face of their racism and a desire to avoid being associated with them, thus supporting Aly to win the Logie instead.

lurkering

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: 0
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 9
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2016, 07:25:40 pm »
+1
Original:
Ballard mocks the Daily Telegraph’s opinion piece by summarising it in the format of a clickbait article, indicating that the Daily Telegraph is voicing these opinions simply for attention. Thus by evincing the fact that they are willing to disparage another person- Waleed Aly- for their own selfish purposes, Ballard manipulates his audience to view the newspaper as despicable, eliciting outrage from readers. This is extrapolated upon further by the apparent single minded focus on ‘racism’ and the ‘brown’ colour of Waleed Aly’s skin listed as ‘reasons’ for the paper’s opinion, highlighting the lack of substance in Daily Telegraph’s arguments that Waleed Aly is undeserving of the nomination, and thus weakening them. Similarly commented upon by Lazar and O’Shannessy by reminding Ballard to not ‘forget Muslim’ and ‘the colour of [Aly’s] skin’ all these examples given also highlight the Daily Telegraph’s extremely biased and bigoted nature to the audience. The tweet by Levick, plays on Ballard’s and gives another perspective on it, twisting the colour of Aly’s skin into a positive by describing it as ‘awesome’, rather than ‘gross’ as the Daily Telegraph is insinuated to do, subsequently propagating Aly as worthy of his nomination to the audience. As a result, readers are encouraged to disagree with the Daily Telegraph’s article in face of their racism and a desire to avoid being associated with them, thus supporting Aly to win the Logie instead.

Ballard mocks the Daily Telegraph’s opinion piece by summarising it in the format of a clickbait article, indicating that the Daily Telegraph is voicing these opinions simply for attention. Sounds a bit clunky. Perhaps starting the sentence with something like: "Ballord's mocking summarisation..... would make your sentences less 'formulaic'. Placing a verb such as 'highlights' after would also force you to analyse it too. Thus You like to use this word a lot. by evincing sounds odd the fact that they who is 'they' are willing to disparage another person- Waleed Aly- for their who are is this 'they' you speak of own selfish purposes, Ballard manipulates his audience to view the newspaper as despicable, eliciting outrage from readers. Could change up your sentence structure here too.This is extrapolated upon further by the apparent single minded focus on ‘racism’ and the ‘brown’ colour of Waleed Aly’s skin listed as ‘reasons’ for the paper’s opinion, highlighting the lack of substance in Daily Telegraph’s arguments that Waleed Aly is undeserving of the nomination, and thus weakening them. and thus weakening them sounds weak at the end of the sentence. try placing it earlier in the sentence. Similarly commented Lazar and O'Shannessy comments. Always be in present tense, you don't want to make the assessors go to sleep. upon by Lazar and O’Shannessy by reminding Ballard to not ‘forget Muslim’ and ‘the colour of [Aly’s] skin’ all these examples unneeded and bogs down your analysisgiven also highlight second time 'highlight' has appearedthe Daily Telegraph’s extremely biased and bigoted nature to the audience. shouldn't it be: just the Daily Telegraph's biased and bigoted nature or how the audience perceives them? Sounds a tad clunky. The tweet by Levick, plays on Ballard’s and gives another perspective on it, twisting the colour of Aly’s skin into a positive attribute? by describing it as ‘awesome’, rather than ‘gross’ as the Daily Telegraph is insinuated to do, subsequently Isn't it a 'good thing' compared to the bigoted nature of the Daily Telegraph? propagating wrong usage? Once again, aren't you arguing against the Daily Telegraph's bigoted nature? Aly as worthy of his nomination to the audience. As a result, readers are encouraged to disagree with the Daily Telegraph’s article in face of their racism and a desire to avoid being associated with them, thus argh! supporting Aly to win the Logie instead.

You love to make your sentences very long and there was little sentence variation present.
A Vocabulary Bank for LA <---- this should help you a lot.