I will underline parts of your essay and give critiques on these underlined sections in red. Rewording is done in green.
In the opinion article titled, "Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard" published by the Herald Sun, writer Andrew Bolt adopts an irrational and at times self righteous tone when contending the issue - weak expression here of the Labor parties 'fatal' and 'weak' laws regarding immigration, as well as the Government's lack of accountability in their failures. The opinion piece is targeted towards the general public, particularly those with an interest in politics, immigration and foreign affairs. - good to see that you've identified the specific target audience
The writer commences opens the opinion article with the repeated use of rhetoric, asking questions like 'But why?, 'When?' and '... or after?'. - in what context are these rhetorical questions being used? What is Bolt referring to when he uses these rhetorical questions? You need to be specific with your examples. This is used to create the illusion of a mounting sense that the general public is being mislead or being poorly informed, implying to the audience that Gillard and her Government are not managing their affairs. Consequently, readers are encouraged to feel negatively towards their Government. - explain the intended effect further! Continuous repetition and use of rhetoric throughout the article emphasises the Government's poor handling of the immigration issue, which serves to further increase feelings of negativity towards Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Government.
The writer - it's okay to refer to the writer as 'the writer' sometimes, but in some instances, it may confuse the reader as it sounds like a new point or you're talking about something else continues his onslaught against the Labor Government by using loaded, negative language through his article. Harsh and blunt words like such as 'death', 'suffering' and 'scum' are used to draw attention to the brutal reality of the issue. In effect, readers are encouraged to switch the blame of the refugees deaths onto Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Labor Government. Furthermore, using the dysphemism 'reckless' and it's adjectival form - this is not an adjective, but an adverb 'recklessly' in describing the Labor Government's removal of certain immigration laws the writer highlights the fatal outcomes that have occurred, and implying implies - although this is not the right word to put in here more guilt. This encourages the reader to push more blame in the direction of the Labor party. In turn, the audience may feel further disdain towards Julia Gillard and her Labor Government. - I get the sense that the only intended effects you have thought of for this article are: (1) the pushing of blame and (2) negativity. You should try to branch out the intended effect and really be specific with the purpose and impact of such use of language, and steer clear from these more generic forms of impact - these are okay to use once or twice, but don't overuse them.
Deeper into the author's article Bolt's opinion piece, there are quotes from multiple Afghan refugees who told separate media sources that "The Australian Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there" and that "Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugees. If I go Australia now, it's different." - you need to break up these quotes. They could easily be weaved into your sentences so that your paragraph flows more seamlessly. By injecting 1 his article with the words of those who know the issue best, the refugees, 2 the writer - do you see how bolded sections 1 and 2 clash? You need to be consistent with your use of pronouns throughout your essay! Substituing the surname 'Bolt' into bolded section 2 would do the trick IMO above adds seemingly irrefutable evidence to his argument. Consequently, the reader is more likely to feel the author's - again another pronoun clash - it is weak expression - the two bolded sections here do not intertwine contention is the truth, or at least has credibility. Quotes are also used to further on - weak expression in the article. The second time - weak expression is an attempt to label Prime Minister Julia Gillard as incompetent. The writer - personalise the piece and refer to 'Bolt' quotes "These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts." - break this quote up and weave it into your sentences, instead of chucking a whole slab in By using this piece of evidence the writer attempts to reveal a severe case of inaction on Julia Gillard's behalf, showing the reader an example of her avoiding questioning on the immigration issue. As a result the readers may feel further negativity towards Julia Gillard - repetitive use of the same intended effect, even when you are discussing a different persuasive technique , as well as identifying her lack of action and accountability.
In addition to his text the author provides an image of a boat full of refugees crashing into Christmas Island's many rocky shores and outcrops - nice and brief, well done! . The picture accompanies the writers Bolt's concluding words well, creating a visual for the reader to have in mind as they read the words "... we can still see their grim consequences, being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island." By providing an image along with these dire words, the readers are inclined to face a blunt and harsh reality. The most dominant feature of the image is the water. Ice cold blue and out of control, the water not only depicts how impossible - wrong word to use in this context the weather conditions are for refugees crossing the ocean to Australia, but is also a symbol of symbolises - be careful with your verbs! the Labor parties lack of control on the immigration issue. The angle of the shot, as we - if I remember correctly, this is the only time you've used inclusive language in your analysis. This is fine, but if you want to use words like "we" and "our" to discuss effect, you need to keep it consistent and start doing it from the start of the essay too look down onto the refugee's refugees' boat from high above on Australian soil is a solid representation of how unattainable refugee's refugees' goals of reaching Australia are. - which makes readers feel..? The angle also attempts to add distance between Australians and the refugees by placing the refugees in far away from Australian soil, in at - careful with your prepositions also the bottom of the image. By creating distance - use a different sentence starter; I've heard 'By..' and 'By..' too many times now , Australian - unnecessary readers are less inclined to feel sympathy for the refugees. The writer's own quote floating in the top corner of the image is dominant. By placing it above the boat and the refugees the writer places himself in a position of authority, as he makes rulings and places judgment on what should happen with the immigration issue. The choice of language in the quote is also important in pushing the writers Bolt's contention, the phrase 'risk their lives at sea' explaining what is happening to those in the image and 'Labors softer treatment' to identify who is at fault for the image and it's tragedy. The image not only provides a shocking visual to accompany the article but provides a quick wrap up of the writers contention - not sure if this is just laziness or not, but you need to put in the apostrophes! to anyone who sees the image in passing but does not stop to read it.
Throughout Bolt's article he attempts - bad expression to identify a sense of disdain in his readers towards Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Labor Government, as well as sway readers into encouraging a change in immigration laws, his textual argument compounded by a horrific image - good ending statement, although the conclusion as a whole could do with a little more depth
I suggest you do a good copy and PM it to me. This is a good effort, and seeing we haven't actually started year 12 English yet, it's a job well done, bar a couple of issues you will need to deal with prior to term 1.
Final mark: 7/10.
Home
Help
Search
Login
