[English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis

[luken93]

Texts: Life of Pi, Year of Wonders
Context: Imaginative Landscape
SS Aim: Less than or equal to Slumdawg... 40+

[luken93]

Week 3 Language Analysis - Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard

The opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published in the Herald Sun contends in a predominantly cynical tone that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s “boat people” laws are weak, and are a microcosm of her overall reign. Similarly, Andrew Bolt attempts to expose the triviality of the government as a whole, and their continuing disbelief, ignorance and avoidance towards the issue that is becoming more evident with each boat that enters our waters.

The editorial is targeted towards the general public as it aims to expose the truths behind the Gillard Government’s renewed attempts at shying away from the issue of strengthening the laws, in particular those who are against the Gillard Government or Prime Minister Gillard and are looking for evidence of her wrongdoings since she ousted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

In order to clearly present his side of the argument, Bolt begins the opinion piece with two rhetorical questions that are designed to appeal to the readers sense of compassion for those who have lost their lives trying to gain entry as a result of Gillard’s feeble laws, while also appealing to a sense of justice in that something needs to be done to curve the steep rise in the number of boats attempting to gain entry onto Australian shores. In turn, readers feel compelled to look for answers as to why the government is avoiding the issue altogether, in doing so aligning their views with Bolt and his contention.

The repetitive association of “never the right time” is used throughout Bolt’s piece to signify that it is time that Gillard and her Government finally address the issue of the increasing number of boats approaching our shores, and the reasons why this number is growing – in order to adorn a sense of iniquity regarding the Government towards the boat people in sending them on a suicide mission every time they set sail. Consequently, readers may feel as though Gillard has to make light of the issue and deal with it appropriately if she hopes to hold on to her current popularity with the Australian voters.

In an attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of readers, Bolt presents anecdotal evidence of several Afghans who show their support for the Government’s reforms that relate to the entry and acceptance of refugees and asylum seekers, describing it as "The (Australian) Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there." Furthermore, the use of statistics regarding the number of deaths of asylum seekers provides additional support to Bolt’s argument, as it provides readers with somewhat irrefutable evidence. These facts further emulate the weaknesses prevalent in Gillard’s laws, and in doing so allow readers to sympathise with their stories of hope and the need for action and/or a need for change in leadership.

The use of emotive language such as “...it's always too soon to blame what's already killed so many -- Gillard's weak laws.”, “...being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island.” and “Once again people were being tempted into the boats -- and to their deaths at sea.” All display the inconvenient truth present in the issue, and suggests that the asylum seekers are being lured into coming due to the sympathetic and to some extent “relaxed” laws that Gillard and her prospective government have imposed. Consequently, readers may feel a sense of disdain towards the Gillard Government for their seemingly immoral behaviour to the welfare of those attempting to gain entry into Australia.

Overall, Bolt presents a piece that is no doubt controversial, but in his opinion his argument is justified. Through the use of several techniques, the piece clearly evaluates the overall reign of Julia Gillard as Australian Prime Minister, and targets this issue of asylum seekers as a clear representation of her effectiveness since she was sworn in. With the aid of the media, this issue is only going to gain more publicity – which is not necessarily a bad thing when people’s lives are at risk and have been risked simply because laws that have been enforced are weak and misleading to those desperate to survive and start a new life in the lucky country of Australia.

[Water]

The opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published in the Herald Sun contends in a predominantly cynical tone that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s “boat people” laws are weak, and are is, she is still PM a microcosm of her overall reign Not sure if this is neccessary. And to me sounds awkward, trying to be wordy unneccesarily. Some reviewers might think otherwise though. Similarly Cut similarly, the opinion piece is an article of Andrew Bolt. He is the one who wrote it, therefore, it doesnt make sense., Andrew Bolt attempts to expose the triviality of the government as a whole, and their continuing disbelief, ignorance and avoidance towards the issue that is becoming more evident with each boat that enters our waters.Okay.

The editorial  Minor. Opinion Piece.is targeted towards the general public Be more specific, it sounds too generic. as it aims to expose the truths behind the Gillard Government’s renewed attempts at shying away from the issue of strengthening the laws, in particular those who are against the Gillard Government or Prime Minister Gillard and are looking for evidence of her wrongdoings since she ousted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. You have a one sentence paragraph. Surely, it can be cut down and further developed.

In order to clearly present his side of the argument, Bolt begins the opinion piece with two rhetorical questions that are designed to appeal to the readers sense of compassion for those who have lost their lives trying to gain entry as a result of Gillard’s feeble laws, while also appealing to a sense of justice in that something needs to be done to curve the steep rise in the number of boats attempting to gain entry onto Australian shores. In turn, readers feel compelled to look for answers as to why the government is avoiding the issue altogether, in doing so aligning their views with Bolt and his contention. Your paragraph, has no quotes. It is also too long, you need to cut it shorter.

The repetitive association of “never the right time” is used throughout Bolt’s piece to signify that it is time that Gillard and her Government finally address the issue of the increasing number of boats approaching our shores Fullstop. New sentence. Then make your new second sentence flow with the first, and the reasons why this number is growing – in order to adorn a sense of iniquity regarding the Government towards the boat people in sending them on a suicide mission every time they set sail Wording is lazy and too simplistic. Reword.. Consequently, readers may feel as though Gillard has to make light of the issue and deal with it appropriately if she hopes to hold on to her current popularity with the Australian voters Confused. She will be in parliament for another 4 years. I think keeping her popularity is the least of her worries..

In an attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of readersSave that "In an attempt as an effect. Again, your trying to put too much in one sentence., Bolt presents anecdotal evidence of several Afghans who show their support for the Government’s reforms that relate to the entry and acceptance of refugees and asylum seekers, describing it as "The (Australian) Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there." I think the sarcasm of the implentation of the quote is designed to undermine the effectiveness of the policy? Furthermore, the use of statistics regarding the number of deaths of asylum seekers provides additional support to Bolt’s argument, as it provides readers with somewhat You want to appear confident to your examiner. Cut "Somewhat" irrefutable evidence. These facts further emulate the weaknesses prevalent in Gillard’s laws, and in doing so allow readers to sympathise with their who is their? Make it clearer. I know what your trying to say stories of hope and the need for action and/or a need for change in leadership I doubt the author wants a change in government this early in leadership and is unrealistic..

The use of emotive language such as “...it's always too soon to blame what's already killed so many -- Gillard's weak laws.”, “...being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island.” and “Once again people were being tempted into the boats -- and to their deaths at sea.”Huh? Why fullstop? and why first sentence appears awkward? All display the inconvenient truth present in the issue, and suggests that the asylum seekers are being lured into coming due to the sympathetic and to some extent “relaxed” laws that Gillard and her prospective government have imposed. Consequently, readers may feel a sense of disdain towards ] the Gillard Government for their seemingly immoral behaviour to the welfare of those attempting to gain entry into Australia. Better expression can be developed here.

Overall, Bolt presents a piece that is no doubt controversial, but in his opinion his argument is justified. Through the use of several techniques, the piece clearly evaluates the overall reign of Julia Gillard as Australian Prime Minister, and targets this issue of asylum seekers as a clear representation of her effectiveness Huh? since she was sworn in. With the aid of the media, this issue is only going to gain more publicity You didn''t discuss media at all. It is out of place with your essay. – which is not necessarily a bad thing when people’s lives are at risk and have been risked simply because laws that have been enforced are weak and misleading to those desperate to survive and start a new life in the lucky country of Australia Is this your opinion. It sounds far too colloquial and unncessary..






Overall, there is alot more that can be discussed regarding your essay. I have critiqued on the main points of your essay. You tend to try and insert alot of your ideas, effect etc...in one sentence.This is not good, a longer sentence tends to lose impact and strength as it gets longer. Hence you need to try to find a right balance. Short sentences are concise, easy to read and is straight to the point. But don't fall into the trap in writing too less, then you will not be able to convey enough.

Your expression at times is also awkward, this can developped over the year.  Sometimes, you also intergrate colloquialism into your essay, this is a bigNo No. Essays are formal writing afterall.

At other times, you do not analyze analytically enough, such as the quote "it is good hear." You need to explain the effect and how it positions the reader. Your effects on the reader also are sometimes generic, vague, or not well developed. I suggest you jot down the technique and reflect deeply on what it aims to achieve. This will firstly, create a plan for your essay, and also helps you to develop stronger analytical skills.

Overall Score 5-6.0/10

[chrisjb]

Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard[/url]

The opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published in the Herald Sun contends in a predominantly cynical tone that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s “boat people” laws are weak, and are a microcosm of her overall reign. Similarly, Andrew Bolt attempts to expose the triviality of the government as a whole, and their continuing disbelief, ignorance and avoidance towards the issue that is becoming more evident with each boat that enters our waters.this sounds kinda opinionated to me, a little rewording would fix it up.

The editorial is targeted towards the general public as it aims to expose the truths behind the Gillard Government’s renewed attempts at shying away from the issue of strengthening the laws, in particular those who are against the Gillard Government or Prime Minister Gillard and are looking for evidence of her wrongdoings since she ousted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. why is the introduction is split into two paragraphs?

In order to clearly present his side of the argument, Bolt begins the opinion piece with two rhetorical questions that are designed to appeal to the readers sense of compassion for those who have lost their lives trying to gain entry as a result of Gillard’s feeble lawsif you say something like 'feeble laws' then make sure that you use a direct quote form Bolt, otherwise it sounds opinionated. "soft policies" for example, while also appealing to a sense of justice in that something needs to be done to curve the steep rise in the number of boats attempting to gain entry onto Australian shores. In turn, readers feel compelled to look for answers as to why the government is avoiding the issue altogether, in doing so aligning their views with Bolt and his contention.this sounds a little bit forced to me... maybe it's just me though.

The repetitive association of “never the right time” is used throughout Bolt’s piece to signify that it is time that Gillard and her Government finally address the issue of the increasing number of boats approaching Australia's shores, and the reasons why this number is growing – in order to adorn a sense of iniquity regarding the Government towards the boat people in sending them on a suicide mission every time they set sailthis is a little opinionated too... but more importantly (perhaps?) it's a bit too long and windy. Consequently, readers may feel as though Gillard has to make light of the issue and deal with it appropriately if she hopes to hold on to her current popularity with the Australian voters.

In an attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of readers, Bolt presents anecdotal evidence of several Afghans who show their support for the Government’s reforms that relate to the entry and acceptance of refugees and asylum seekers, describing it as "The (Australian) Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there." that sounded a bit strangeFurthermore, the use of statistics regarding the number of deaths of asylum seekers provides additional support to Bolt’s argument, as it provides readers with somewhat irrefutable evidence. These facts further emulate the weaknesses prevalent in Gillard’s laws, and in doing so allow readers to sympathise with their stories of hope and the need for action and/or a need for change in leadership.

The use of emotive language such as “...it's always too soon to blame what's already killed so many -- Gillard's weak laws.”, “...being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island.” and “Once again people were being tempted into the boats -- and to their deaths at sea.”these quotes are too long All display the inconvenient truth present in the issue, and suggests that the asylum seekers are being lured into coming due to the sympathetic and to some extent “relaxed” laws that Gillard and her prospective government have imposed. Consequently, readers may feel a sense of disdain towards the Gillard Government for their seemingly immoral behaviour to the welfare of those attempting to gain entry into Australia.

Overall, Bolt presents a piece that is no doubt controversial, but in his opinion his argument is justified. Through the use of several techniques, the piece clearly evaluates the overall reign of Julia Gillard as Australian Prime Minister, and targets this issue of asylum seekers as a clear representation of her effectiveness since she was sworn in. With the aid of the media, this issue is only going to gain more publicity – which is not necessarily a bad thing when people’s lives are at risk and have been risked simply because laws that have been enforced are weak and misleading to those desperate to survive and start a new life in the lucky country of Australia.
too opinionated. Be more impartial

It was prety good. The main things I noticed was not getting too opinionated and sometimes your sentences got a bit wordy. Also, smaller quotes.

[werdna]

I'll underline key sections and discuss these in red. Rewording will be in green.

The opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published in the Herald Sun contends The text doesn't contend, the writer does. in a predominantly cynical tone that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s “boat people” laws are weak, and are a microcosm of her overall reign. Similarly, Andrew Bolt The word 'similarly' makes it seem like this is a multi-text analysis. This is because you should've stated the writer's name closer to the start of the intro. Leaving his name to the middle makes it sound like the Bolt article is article number two, when in fact this is only one article you're analysing here. attempts to expose the triviality of the government as a whole, and their continuing disbelief, ignorance and avoidance towards the issue that is becoming more evident with each boat that enters our waters. Unnecessary.

The editorial is targeted towards the general public as it aims to expose the truths behind the Gillard Government’s renewed attempts at shying away from the issue of strengthening the laws Weak expression. , in particular those who are against the Gillard Government or Prime Minister Gillard and are looking for evidence of her wrongdoings since she ousted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

In order to clearly present his side of the argument, Bolt begins the opinion piece with two rhetorical questions that are designed to appeal to the readers sense of compassion for those who have lost their lives trying to gain entry as a result of Gillard’s feeble laws, while also appealing to a sense of justice in that something needs to be done to curve the steep rise in the number of boats attempting to gain entry onto Australian shores. This sentence is way too long. It should have stopped at the end of 'feeble laws' and you should've rephrased the next clause to become its own sentence. In turn, readers feel compelled to look for answers as to why the government is avoiding the issue altogether, in doing so aligning their views with Bolt and his contention. This is a generic statement.

The repetitive association Association? of “never the right time” is used throughout Bolt’s piece to signify that it is time that Gillard and her Government finally address the issue of the increasing number of boats approaching our shores, and the reasons why this number is growing Doesn't make sense. – in order to adorn a sense of iniquity regarding the Government towards the boat people in sending them on a suicide mission every time they set sail. Consequently, readers may feel as though Gillard has to make light of the issue and deal with it appropriately if she hopes to hold on to her current popularity with the Australian voters. You've touched on this, but delve deeper. How would this make readers feel? Does Gillard really have 'current popularity'? If anything, readers would denounce Gillard and her actions, instead of be hopeful of her keeping her 'current popularity'.

In an attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of readers, Bolt presents anecdotal evidence of several Afghans who show their support for the Government’s reforms that relate to the entry and acceptance of refugees and asylum seekers, describing it as "The (Australian) Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there." Discuss the intended effect further. Furthermore, the use of statistics regarding the number of deaths of asylum seekers provides additional support to Bolt’s argument, as it provides readers with somewhat irrefutable evidence. Which makes them feel and do what? These facts further emulate the weaknesses prevalent in Gillard’s laws, and in doing so allow readers to sympathise with their Whose stories of hope? I know you're talking about the Afghans, but you need to make this far more specific and clearer - watch your pronouns as they can sometimes get confusing in a lengthy sentence. stories of hope and the need for action and/or a need for change in leadership.

The use of emotive language such as “...it's always too soon to blame what's already killed so many -- Gillard's weak laws.”, “...being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island.” and “Once again people were being tempted into the boats -- and to their deaths at sea.” Break these up. All Each of the quotes above has a different impact on readers. You can't just quote slabs of evidence and say that they have the same effect. Try to analyse quotes individually, then analyse words (within the quote) individually, and then analyse the cumulative effect of all these things working in collaboration to achieve a final impact. display the inconvenient truth present in the issue, and suggests that the asylum seekers are being lured into coming due to the sympathetic and to some extent “relaxed” laws that Gillard and her prospective government have imposed. Consequently, readers may feel a sense of disdain towards the Gillard Government for their seemingly immoral behaviour to the welfare of those attempting to gain entry into Australia.

Overall, Bolt presents a piece that is no doubt controversial, but in his opinion his argument is justified. Through the use of several techniques, the piece clearly Not used in the right context. evaluates the overall reign of Julia Gillard as Australian Prime Minister, and targets this issue of asylum seekers as a clear representation of her effectiveness since she was sworn in. With the aid of the media, this issue is only going to gain more publicity – which is not necessarily a bad thing when people’s lives are at risk and have been risked simply because laws that have been enforced are weak and misleading to those desperate to survive and start a new life in the lucky country of Australia. Avoid this kind of thing.

It's a good essay, but it's not without its issues. The introduction is confusing, there are some expression problems, some areas are lacking in depth and you fail to analyse the specific effect of individual techniques in some areas, and just throw in a generic impact statement at the end of a listing of 3 or 4 long quotes. Other than this, a good start to the year I say.

Final score: 7/10.

[HERculina]

Week 3 Language Analysis - Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard

The opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published in the Herald Sun contends in a predominantlyunecessary i thinkcynical tone that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s “boat people” laws are weak, and are a microcosm of her overall reign. Similarly, Andrew Bolt attempts to expose the triviality of the government as a whole, and their continuing disbelief, ignorance and avoidance towards the issue that is becoming more evident with each boat that enters our waters.

The editorial is targeted towards the general public this should be in the intro (about the audienceas it aims to expose the truths behind the Gillard Government’s renewed attempts at shying away from the issue of strengthening the laws, in particular those who are against the Gillard Government or Prime Minister Gillard and are looking for evidence of her wrongdoings since she ousted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

In order to clearly present his side of the argument, Bolt begins the opinion piece with two rhetorical questions that are designed to appeal to the readers sense of compassion for those who have lost their lives trying to gain entry as a result of Gillard’s feeble laws, while also appealing to a sense of justice in that something needs to be done to curve the steep rise in the number of boats attempting you use the word attempt a lot xD to gain entry onto Australian shores. In turn, readers feel compelled to look for answers as to why the government is avoiding the issue altogether, in doing so aligning their views with Bolt and his contention.

The repetitive association of “never the right time” good exploration on this technique in this paragraph is used throughout Bolt’s piece to signify that it is time that Gillard and her Government finally address the issue of the increasing number of boats approaching our shores, and the reasons why this number is growing – in order to adorn a sense of iniquity regarding the Government towards the boat people in sending them on a suicide mission every time they set sail. Consequently, readers may feel as though Gillard has to make light of the issue and deal with it appropriately if she hopes to hold on to her current popularity with the Australian voters.

In an attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of readers, Bolt presents anecdotal evidence of several Afghans who show their support for the Government’s reforms that relate to the entry and acceptance of refugees and asylum seekers, describing it as "The (Australian) Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there." Furthermore, the use of statistics regarding the number of deaths of asylum seekers provides additional support to Bolt’s argument, as it provides readers with somewhat irrefutable evidence. These facts further emulate the weaknesses prevalent in Gillard’s laws, and in doing so allow readers to sympathise with their stories of hope and the need for action and/or a need for change in leadership.

The use of emotive language such as “...it's always too soon to blame what's already killed so many -- Gillard's weak laws.”, “...being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island.” and “Once again people were being tempted into the boats -- and to their deaths at sea.” All display the inconvenient truth present in the issue, and suggests that the asylum seekers are being lured into coming due to the sympathetic and to some extent “relaxed” laws that Gillard and her prospective government have imposed. Consequently, readers may feel a sense of disdain towards the Gillard Government for their seemingly immoral behaviour to the welfare of those attempting to gain entry into Australia.

Overall, Bolt presents a piece that is no doubt controversial, but in his opinion his argument is justified. Through the use of several techniques, the piece clearly evaluates the overall reign of Julia Gillard as Australian Prime Minister, and targets this issue of asylum seekers as a clear representation of her effectiveness since she was sworn in. With the aid of the media, this issue is only going to gain more publicity – which is not necessarily a bad thing when people’s lives are at risk and have been risked simply because laws that have been enforced are weak and misleading to those desperate to survive and start a new life in the lucky country of Australia not formal enough. leave out the word lucky. 

GREAT WORK! Overall i rate this an 8/10! =DDD
youu have good vocab