I'll underline key sections and discuss these in red. Rewording, if any, will be in green.
Andrew Bolt’s condemnatory opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (17/12/2010) in
The Herald Sun, presents an
opinion Isn't this why it's called an opinion piece? Unnecessary; cut it out. around the issue of the then incumbent Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and her
relaxed lenient policy making and handling of the problem of illegal immigration, which has since become a contentious issue amongst the Australian public.
This whole opening sentence is slightly tautological in my opinion, you state nearly the same thing in different words and go around in a round-about. Be more brief with the context you provide. Bolt virulently
Excellent vocabulary! condemns the Labour Government’s policy handling of asylum boat arrivals that he believes, has resulted in numerous tragic fatalities. His tone is established from the very outset of the piece, with the title ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’ immediately enforcing an accusatory and cynical tone. His repetition of the word ‘blame’ in the sub-heading further asserts this tone for the reader. What about the significance of the 'don't blame
me' part? Why is Bolt considering that he may or is a part of the debate?
Bolt begins his article with repeated rhetorical questions
‘But why?’ and ‘Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ You've made the same mistake that the others have made. Y
ou need to be specific with every single piece of evidence you provide. You cannot analyse the 'But why?' rhetorical question if you haven't outlined what Bolt is referring to. followed by a string of words with
pejorative connotations ‘drown’, ‘lured’, ‘deaths’, ‘warnings’ and ‘tragedy’.
You've only just touched on the connotations behind these words; delve deeper. The combined effect Try not to make your structure of T.E.E or other too obvious. of the repeated rhetorics and the heavy use of pejorative language not only instantly draws
the reader’s attention to the severity of the issue Generic. , but also
instils doubt in the minds of the primary audience This intended effect is better, but you should try to be more specific, and maybe relate the effect to a particular part of the target audience. , the voters of the Australian public, as to what the Gillard Government has been doing during this time of ‘tragedy’.
Bolt’s use of inclusive language such as ‘.
..deaths, we’re told’, ‘...can we point out’ and ‘...you read that rightly’ Bad. Avoid just listing slabs of quotes and evidence, and try to analyse single words or shorter phrases; as you'd be able to discuss specific impact on the audience, rather than falling into the trap of adding a generic effect on the end of a listing of 3 or 4 quotes. You should analyse the impact of quotes as they work individually, and then as they work cumulatively as a group of techniques in one paragraph/section. is used throughout his opinion piece.
Such language is used by Bolt Avoid passive voice in any essay writing. to include his audience in a group that can bring an end to the ‘tragic deaths’ of asylum seeking boat arrivals. This, when coupled with Bolt’s use of first person, causes readers to think that Bolt himself is involved and emotionally concerned about the issue, positioning his target audience of voters to feel that it is this involvement that that make a difference and can prevent any further deaths from occurring.
The
use of repetition of certain phrases is consistent throughout Bolt’s article. From the early anaphora
‘It’s never been the right time...’ You state a quote but you don't explain how it has been used by Bolt, and in what context he's used it in. It's never been the right time to what? to repeated phrases such as ‘too soon’, ‘they lie’ and ‘to blame’, Bolt aims to repeatedly place
emphasises emphasis on his contention
, that the Gillard-led Labour Government is responsible for the tragic deaths of asylum seeking boat arrivals. This
implementation of reiteration Weak expression. , is made more clear through the overall structure of his opinion piece, which uses pejorative language in between lines of political quotations such as ‘...tried to make politics in an incident like this’ and raw data and various anecdotes. Anecdotes, such of those of ‘Afghan Norooz Ali Iqbal and his nine-year-old son, Mounir’, are given by Bolt to add a sense reality to the otherwise more mundane political excuses of the Gillard Government. These anecdotes,
when coupled They are coupled. Your tense here is strange; you need to write in present tense! with the s
trong emotive language used throughout the article such as ‘disgraceful’, ‘deaths’ and ‘scum’, and the various statistics provided See what you've done here? You've grouped a slab of words and a reference to statistics together, and fail to discuss how each of these words/techniques impacts the reader. Instead, you've fallen into the trap of grouping seemingly similar techniques and have therefore popped a general, generic intended effect at the end. , aim to create sympathy and compassion for the ‘victims’ of the tragedy. This
positions his audience against the Gillard Governments actions This is a given. , by showing them that real people such as Norooz Ali Iqbal may still be alive had it not been for the Government’s poor handling of the situation.
The figurative language implemented by Bolt Again, avoid writing in the passive voice. Active voice will make your essay seem more in control. is also consistent through the opinion piece. Phrases such as ‘...the Government's harvest of bodies in April last year, when five Afghans died in blowing up their boat near Ashmore Reef’ and ‘this latest boat smashed into the rocks of Christmas Island’ conjure strong and horrifying images in the readers’ minds. These visuals are soon made into reality when the audience is confronted by the photograph of the boat that is stranded in treacherous waters.
This image, and the accompanying figurative language Good coupling of techniques here. , brings a further sense of reality to the issue and furthermore,
instil instills a sense of fear and in the audience of what the asylum seekers are confronted with on the shores of a country led by the Gillard Government.
This overall effect Again, try to avoid making your structure seem too glaringly obvious. is used as further evidence to why the Gillard Government is to blame for the tragic deaths of these boat arrivals.
In his opinion
article piece , Bolt
utilises There has been a change in tense in your writing. a challenging and scathing tone to provide a case against the
relaxed Not the right word to describe something like a Govt or its actions. and inadequate actions of the Labour Gillard Government in regard to immigration policy. He implements a structure that is
riddled permeated with
various repetitions the repetition of phrases and pejorative language. Bolt provides his target audience of Australian voters with statistics, anecdotes and a powerful visual image in order to show them that the policies currently being implemented by the Government, are still not sufficient to remedy the controversial issue of boat arriving asylum seekers.
I've been a bit harsh with the marking, but overall, this is a good analysis of the article. Remember that whenever you want to introduce two or more techniques in one sentence, analyse the impact on the audience as individual techniques first, and then analyse how these techniques work together to produce a combined impact. Also try and be more specific with your examples and evidence. Analysing the 'But why?' rhetorical question, without explaining the reference/context/implications, but then going on to attempt to discuss the intended effect will only result in another generic statement about the impact on the audience.
Other than that, this statement:
I really fail at English
Is nonsense, because clearly, you know how to write very well! I don't think there's anyone at MHS who isn't good at English..
Final score: 7.5/10