[English] "Change your tune, Peter" language analysis

[jane1234]

Wow, I haven't posted anything here for a while...

This is one we had to do for class, just wondering if anyone could give feedback for it

Here's the link to the article if you want to read it, otherwise just comment on structure etc:

http://www.topstocks.com.au/stock_discussion_forum.php?action=show_thread&threadid=354114   

Andrew Bolt’s retort to Environment Minister Peter Garrett’s endorsement of a new uranium mine in Adelaide is evident in his opinion piece “Change your tune, Peter”. The Herald Sun article, composed on the 17th July 2009, deems Garrett a hypocrite as he allowed such a mine to be built, albeit he sang about environmental conservation during his career as a musician. Bolt justifies, to his audience of old Garrett music fans and those concerned about the environment, that a nuclear power plant would be better for the environment than a mine. He portrays the Environment Minister condescendingly, adopting both sarcasm and cynicism, to convince readers to support his position against Garrett.

Bolt makes extensive use of hyperbole to depict Garrett as ignorant and hypocritical. He claims that Garrett believed that nuclear power would give people “two heads and fry [their] gonads”. This exaggeration causes those against nuclear power to appear foolish and ludicrous, as it is unlikely that would ever happen. Bolt positions readers to believe that Garrett is not justified in his stance against nuclear power. Furthermore, Bolt creates an image of “terrible” things that anti-nuclear campaigners claim happen as a result of nuclear power plants. Phrases such as “char our land”, “scare our women” and “feed explosions that will wipe us out” appear outlandish and question the credibility of nuclear opponents. In particular, “scare our women” relates directly to the infamous Chernobyl incident where countless women aborted their babies in fear of deformation. These overstatements undermine the authority of Garrett and other nuclear challengers, provoking readers to support Bolt’s view as more reasonable and rational.

In this article, Bolt generates numerous attacks on Garrett and the people against nuclear power. He likens Garrett to a “global warming preacher”, who started “flogging tickets for...joy rides into space”. This correlation makes both Garrett and the “preacher” (Tim Flannery) appear as hypocrites, and enforces that those worried about nuclear power and environmental issues have no accountability. It evokes the reader to dismiss Garrett’s earlier claims, and juxtaposes Bolt’s opinion, making it seem credible and reliable. Moreover, Bolt attacks people that may reinforce Garrett’s claims against nuclear power, such as “anti-nuclear hysteric Helen Caldicott”. The word “hysteric”, especially, demoralizes the source’s dependability. This makes it appear that people against nuclear power plants are overexaggerating the situation and turning melodramatic over it. In this way, readers are lead to believe that people for nuclear power are more rational and stable than those against it.

Language is used within the article to arouse the reader’s emotions and invoke them to feel more on Bolt’s side supporting nuclear power. He states that Garrett’s former fans were “stupid enough to believe” the things that Garrett “screeched against everything nuclear”. The word “stupid” implies that any supporters of Garrett do not think carefully about his words and actions. Garrett’s own integrity is questioned with the word “screeched”, as this insinuates that Garrett’s opinions have little substance to them. This causes the reader to side against Garrett, as they do not want to fall into the category of being “stupid” by following someone with little trustworthiness. Bolt also states that Garrett makes “bizarre claim[ s ]” about the “dangers of nuclear power”. The word “bizarre” carries connotations of being false, outlandish and ridiculous. The reader is then persuaded that Garrett’s statements aren’t reliable and the “dangers” are not as extreme as were noted by Garrett.

Bolt uses both a sarcastic and cynical tone to undermine Garrett’s views and claims about nuclear power. In the headline, “change your tune”, makes reference to Garrett’s past singing career, as well as his inconsistency and lack of integrity. This headline is designed to induce the reader to read the article, as they are likely to be drawn in by the slight humour in the pun. When Bolt points out that “Dr Burton Bennet, is no rock star”, Garrett appears superficial and ignorant, which are traits most people stereotype with “rock star”. By saying that Dr Bennet is not a “rock star”, readers are lead to believe that he has the opposite traits to Garrett and therefore much more credible. Bolt also adopts a sarcastic tone when commenting on the Chernobyl disaster and how it was blamed for producing a cancer that “surprised” a doctor. By this, Bolt questions the reason and logic behind the claims that the Chernobyl disaster was the cause of many chronic illnesses. This aims to convince the reader that even nuclear disasters are not as devastating as commonly thought, and Garrett has no foundation for his claims against it.
 
Though Bolt uses a condescending tone when he gives the nickname “Pete” to belittle Garrett, he also uses logic and reasoning to reiterate his own stance on power plants. Bolt states that, unlike Garret’s claims, the Chernobyl disaster only killed around 50 people. This statistic, from “a credible source” – the Chernobyl Forum – not only questions Garrett’s influence but gives authoritative support for Bolt’s viewpoint. This endeavours to persuade readers that Bolt is well-informed and knowledgeable, and that he is more likely to be accurate than Garrett. Bolt states that his sources come from various United Nations organisations, “including the World Health Organisation”. Readers would likely be familiar with these “bodies”, as they have a reputation for being well-researched and thorough. Bolt does not give any sources behind Garrett’s statistics, which make it appear as though he has no basis for argument. In quoting these expert opinions, Bolt reinforces his own stance and thus readers are led to believe that nuclear power is a much better option than uranium mining.
   
This article aspires to convince readers that Garrett is hypocritical for allowing a uranium mine to be built when, in his past career as a musician, he preached about keeping the environment clean. The combination of sarcasm and irony, along with expert statistics and appeals to logic, makes it appear as though Garrett lacks integrity and authority in his stance against nuclear power. Thus, Bolt aims to convince the audience that Garrett’s “legacy of fear” is doing the environment more harm than good.


Any feedback would be great!!