Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

June 09, 2023, 08:23:03 pm

Author Topic: [2020 LA CLUB] Week 2  (Read 3200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

J_Rho

  • MOTM: MARCH 20
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
  • Respect: +756
[2020 LA CLUB] Week 2
« on: May 04, 2020, 03:10:28 pm »
+6
[2020 LA CLUB] Week 2

Hey guys! This is one of the articles my teacher gave me a few weeks ago, and it was super tricky! I've put in both articles but don't feel like you have to do it on both hence why the first in in the spoiler.

Happy Analysing!

Spoiler
Newcastle Herald Letters to the Editor: Monday, October 28



I last visited Uluru in 2011 and walked around the rock, noting how dangerous the climb is; neither my wife nor I even contemplated the climb.

I wonder how responsible people are, particularly those with children who take them up a very steep narrow pathway with just a chain handrail partway up the rock to hold on to when at the base to the climb there are a number of memorial plaques to those who have fallen to their death.

This climb should have been closed long ago, not just for the fact that the local Aboriginals have ask politely for years that people respect their culture, but because it is positively dangerous with many deaths having occurred.

John Davies, Newcastle East

#Nopressfreedom at Ayers Rock

Andrew Bolt

In a week when the media have been highlighting issues affecting Press Freedom one thing that perhaps hasnít really been discussed that much is the mediaís ability to self censor itself, particularly soft left media outlets, from asking the hard questions on sensitive issues. And Climbing Ayers Rock is certainly one of those issues. Not a single Australian based reporter I spoke with over the last two years was prepared to take on Parks Australiaís draconian media restrictions and interview people at the summit monument or climb and take their own photos of the remarkable World Heritage Listed views that people go up there to see. Itís been quite surreal. I think North Korea probably has freer access to its Natural wonders.

To mark the death of climbing I submitted a notice to the Sydney Morning Herald. Hereís a version of it as it appears on the Quadrant website.

Now it was rejected. Didn't meet the guidelines. Youíll note the similarities to another notice about the death of English Cricket. And this is to emphasise that the Loss of the climb is a great loss of Australian Cultural Heritage. And this is shared heritage of Aboriginal Owners and non-Aboriginal Australians and indeed other cultures from around the world. Parks Australia and the Board have gone to great lengths to hide the shared cultural history at the rock. This is their version of that history:

Apparently, according to Parks Australia "Anangu never Climb Uluru". But we know that history includes the fact that past owners climbed and were happy to share the climb with visitors. In fact the first guides were local Aboriginal men, and you may recall you broadcast that remarkable footage from the 1940s restored by Lutheran Archives that showed Tiger Tjalkalyirri and Mitjenkeri Mick climbing the rock with two white visitors.

Youíd think ABC might be interested in screening that on Australian Story. Perhaps those facts are a little inconvenient. Sadly, there is nothing in official Park Literature to indicate any of these events happened. If I had not done Parks job for them and documented that wonderful history of the climb, none of this would be known. Parks Australia have used Orwellís 1984 as its public relations manual but when you are looking sweep history under the carpet what better guide is there? Indeed I argue that in its current management plan that includes no mention of the attitudes and actions of past owners, Parks Australia mislead Parliament. If politicians had of been presented with all the facts back in 2010 when this plan was passed and they were aware of the complex picture I doubt they would have allowed those ridiculous closure provisions to pass.

We can look at other examples of misinformation from Parks Australia. They tell us 37 people have died on the rock, but they donít provide the overall risk content that with over 7 million past climbers this shows that for people under 50 the risks of climbing to the summit are the same as flying to the rock from Sydney. The risk for people over 5 is about the dame as driving there.

They contend that less than 20% of people want to climb the rock, but they donít tell you they keep it closed about 80% of the time, or that based on their own data when you look at those rare days when the climb was available from dawn to dusk that on average 44% of visitors climbed.

They claim there are significant environmental issues with the climb but fail to tell us how they handle the much greater issues of waste from people completing the base walk.

The level of misinformation from a government agency is remarkable and yet there has been little interest from ABC or Fairfax or The Guardian in doing any digging. And so members of the public who rely on those biased self-censoring sources who donít subscribe to more informed and balanced news outlets like The Australian, or Quadrant or Skynews are left with a completely false impression of the significance of our iconic rock climb.

http://righttoclimb.blogspot.com/2019/10/bolt-report-interview.html
« Last Edit: May 04, 2020, 03:13:31 pm by J_Rho »
ó VCE ó
English 30, Further Maths 33, Biology 33, Legal Studies 27, Psychology 32

ó University ó
Bachelor of Nursing @ Monash
Bachelor of Counselling & Psychological Science @ ACAP

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2020 LA CLUB] Week 2
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2020, 05:38:40 pm »
0
By referring to Parks Australia's newly imposed restrictions as "draconian," Bolt castigates the current inability to climb Uluru. This adjective connotes a set of unnecessarily stringent laws that Parks Australia would be better without, and thus the interviewee positions the audience to lambast these unfair rules and regard them as an outcome of shallow decision making. This notion is fortified by his descriptions of Uluru's view once climbed as "surreal" and "remarkable", suggesting that the idiosyncrasy of these sights are inaccessible elsewhere, whilst also conjuring images of unimaginable beauty. Through the implicitly yearnful undertones of this description, Bolt endeavours to invoke a sense of wonder within readers, who in turn are inclined to react with a similar longing for the unavailable opportunity to climb Uluru. Additionally, the sarcasm implied in the statement "North Korea probably has freer access to its Natural wonders" blatantly accuses the unreasonable decision to prohibit climbing Ayers Rock. The interviewee achieves this by drawing upon North Korea's dictatorship and control over the lives of its citizens, thus aiming to fuel a state of vexation within the reader towards Australia's similarly unnerving attempts to control the actions of its people. Contrarily, Davies' letter to the editor is a stark reminder of the dangers involved with climbing Uluru. By illustrating the "very steep narrow pathway" followed by mere "children", the writer adopts a fear-mongering approach in delineating the perils associated with the climb. As a result, the reader is likely to feel a sense of fear and apprehension and therefore share his opinion that the ability to ascend the rock has been rightfully banned. Diverging from this letter, Bolt's mentioning of the "remarkable footage" of Indigenous Australians climbing the rock alongside "two white visitors" endeavours to dispel any myths regarding Aboriginals denouncing the ability to stand atop Uluru within the reader's mind. The photograph included depicts an Australian wearing clothes resembling that of an explorer - indicative of the rock's many characteristics that arouse curiosity and awe in those who climb it. The two Aboriginal men standing beside him, one pointing and one looking directly towards the camera, is an overt sign of their community's approval of climbing Ayers Rock. Therein, Bolt seeks to evoke a sense of frustration within the reader through mocking Parks Australia's decision. To this end, the interviewee supports his assertion that precluding the public from climbing the iconic landmark Uluru is a result of misinformation and ultimately does not result in any positive ramifications. In opposition, Davies describes the "polite" requests of Aboriginals to "respect their culture" in an attempt to expose the unscrupulousness of the Australian public who perenially refuse to acknowledge their traditions. The writer seeks to divulge the pertinence of this truth to Parks Australia's decision to ban Uluru, and thus the reader is invited to regard this prohibition with a sense of guilt and culpability regarding what should have been done long ago.

Any feedback is much appreciated :P