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

[azngirl456]

Text/Film: Ransom & On the Waterfront

Context: Whose Reality? (The Shark Net & A Streetcar Named Desire)

SS Aim: Aiming High 

__________________________________________________________________________________

** you will be required to provide internal hyperlinks to your essays on this post - see my thread to see what I mean **

January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Language analysis

February essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Language analysis
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Good copy

March essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Language analysis
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Good copy

April essays:
Week 1: Text response
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Text response
Week 4: Good copy

May essays:
Week 1: Context piece
Week 2: Context piece
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

June essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

July essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

August essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy
Week 5: Good copy

September essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

October essays:
Week 1: Practise exam analysis

[azngirl456]

scroll down...

[azngirl456]

Herald Sun writer Andrew Bolt’s opinionative article, ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard (17/2/2010),’ consists of many language techniques which collaborate in order to persuade the audience. These specific language devices compel readers to share Bolt’s point of view that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government are to blame for the refugee boat disaster and deaths at Christmas Island. Throughout the opinionative piece, Bolt adopts a hostile and at times condescending tone to illustrate his anger and condemnation for the Labor Government’s actions, namely the relaxation of refugee laws.

Bolt launches a contemptuous attack on the Gillard Government through rhetorical questions and an effective use of pictorial support. In the early lines of Bolt’s article, readers are confronted with the straightforward and succinct, ‘But why? And if not now, when?’ which is strikingly followed by ‘before the next boat sinks, or after?’ These questions beg an obvious answer, as readers are able to follow the line of reason that at this instant, Gillard should hold blame for the tragic refugee boat incident. The horrific pictorial support above the opinionative piece features a large boat that has crashed up against a cliff and is amidst rough ocean waves. The photo evokes a sense of pity and empathy amongst readers, which lead to feelings of injustice for the fate of some of the supposed asylum seekers. After surveying the large elevated boat, readers are directed to the pull out quote, accompanying the left hand corner of the photo. It contends that, ‘It’s never been the right time to point out the Government was encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea by rewarding those who made it here with the sugar of Labor’s softer treatment.’ The quote aptly summarises the situation to readers, as they are more than willingly to accept that the Labor Government are at fault for this incident. The photo has encapsulated the whole situation and has caused readers to disapprove upon Julia Gillard and her current refugee policies.

Bolt maintains his hostile and patronising tone through repetition of various phrases and occurrences of negatively connotated words. The anaphora of ‘It’s not too soon to blame…’ and ‘It is not too soon for the Sunday Morning Herald…’ is effective in emphasising and listing number of accusations directed at various people all except Julia Gillard. The reader is therefore impressed with the amount of other people or phenomenon that have been blamed and are likely to share the same sentiments with Bolt that Julia Gillard should take some part responsibility as well. Bolt favours the use of visually explicit words such as ‘Government’s harvest of bodies’ and ‘lured to their deaths’ to paint the Labor government in negative light. These adjectives and descriptions impose the reader to distance themselves from the government and to be astonished by the severe extent of their actions as well as their unwillingness to accept responsibility. Bolt’s lack of euphemisms suggests to readers that he does not want to embellish the truth but rather present the facts in a ‘black and white’ manner. The writer juxtaposes the government’s ‘pious Leftists claiming to be too delicate to discuss today what caused the deaths,’ along with himself, ‘[The Government] denounced my rudeness on ABC television and on ABC websites.’ Andrew Bolt is presented and seen to readers as a more trustworthy writer than the Government hence the audience are more likely to adopt his view that the Gillard government are unreliable and unscrupulous.

The use of evidence, statistics and quotes from notable professionals by Bolt increases the credibility and validity of his opinions. The sentence, ‘Many times since I’ve recorded those deaths, starting with 9 people who drowned…’ conveys to readers that the writer has engaged in research and is quite eager about this issue. Readers are likely to see Bolt in the position of a knowledgeable pedestal and see credit and worth for his thoughts. The statistic that, ‘…the boats were back-soaring from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone,’ positions the audience to feel alarmed and to quickly associate this outcome with the Julia Gillard’s incompetency and complacency. Bolt cleverly singles out quotes from left wing journalists, federal ministers and authorities to attack the flaws in their argument and to exemplify that blame is place on almost everyone except the prime minister. He included Courier Mail’s Dennis Atkins’ quote, ‘We are all responsible for this event…’ in order to appeal to the readers’ sense of reason that every Australian citizen cannot be possibly to blame for the Christmas Island disaster.

Overall, readers are convinced that Bolt’s opinion is valid and acceptable after he has used many persuasive language techniques to cultivate or enhance their beliefs that Julia Gillard is responsible for the Christmas Island Refugee Boat Incident.


Reflection of Language Analysis
1)   In VCE English, one of my weaknesses is language analysis despite many people saying it’s the easiest part of English
2)   I am still confused about the structuring of a language analysis. I’ve heard of two different ways of structuring, one is that you group similar language techniques together and analyse the piece chronologically and the other is to figure out the micro arguments (each micro argument will be dedicated to one paragraph) and then discuss language techniques used for each micro argument. There probably isn’t a correct way to structuring as it highly depends on what you prefer and what article you get to analyse
3)   I’m still confused as to whether you need a conclusion in a language analysis. And if you need a conclusion, I’m also confused as to how to write one
4)   I probably could have elaborated more on the evidence and statistics
5)   I probably could have addressed the overall ‘appeal to audience’ in more depth
6)   I probably missed something really important in the article and have forgotten to discuss it properly
7)   Some people think my sentences are too long. But I think they’re fine…hopefully.
   Will be happy to listen to any critique and improvements suggested

[brightsky]

Herald Sun writer Andrew Bolt’s opinionative article, ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard (17/2/2010),’ consists of many language techniques which collaborate in order to persuade the audience. This feels very strained. Also, contextualise your analysis/the article.These specific language devices Don't like this. Examiners may feel as though they're in for some name-dropping. Try and minimalise these ineffectual sentences and just get straight to the point.compel readers to share Bolt’s point of view that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government are to blame for the refugee boat disaster and deaths at Christmas Island. Throughout the opinionative piece, Bolt adopts a hostile and at times condescendingEvaluative. Avoid. tone to illustrate his anger and condemnation for the Labor Government’s actions, namely the relaxation of refugee laws. You fail to mention the extended rationale of the piece. What does the writer want done? 

Bolt launches a contemptuous attack on the Gillard Government through rhetorical questions and an effective use of pictorial support. In the early lines of Bolt’s article, readers are confronted with the straightforward and succinct, ‘But why? And if not now, when?’ which is strikingly followed by ‘before the next boat sinks, or after?’ These questions beg an obvious answer, as readers are able to follow the line of reason that at this instant, Gillard should hold blame for the tragic refugee boat incident. The horrific pictorial support above the opinionative piece features a large boat that has crashed up against a cliff and is amidst rough ocean waves. The photo evokes a sense of pity and empathy amongst readers, which lead to feelings of injustice for the fate of some of the supposed asylum seekers. This is good.After surveying the large elevated boat, readers are directed to the pull out quote, accompanying the left hand corner of the photo. It contends that, ‘It’s never been the right time to point out the Government was encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea by rewarding those who made it here with the sugar of Labor’s softer treatment.’ The quote aptly summarises the situation to readers, as they are more than willingly to accept that the Labor Government are at fault for this incident. The photo has encapsulated the whole situation and has caused readers to disapprove upon upon?Julia Gillard and her current refugee policies.

Bolt maintains his hostile and patronising Good!tone through repetition of various phrases and occurrences of negatively connotated words.I would aim to begin your paragraph differently. Namedropping is not something you want felt by the examiner. Try not to identify the techniques as explicitly as you do here. The anaphora of ‘It’s not too soon to blame…’ and ‘It is not too soon for the Sunday Morning Herald…’ is effectiveEvaluative. Avoid. in emphasising and listing number of accusations directed at various people all except Julia Gillard. The reader is therefore impressed with the amount of other people or phenomenon that have been blamed and are likely to share the same sentiments with Bolt that Julia Gillard should take some part responsibility as well. Bolt favours the use of visually explicit words such as ‘Government’s harvest of bodies’ and ‘lured to their deaths’ to paint the Labor government in negative light. These adjectives and descriptions impose the reader to distance themselves from the government and to be astonished by the severe extent of their actions as well as their unwillingness to accept responsibility. Good.Bolt’s lack of euphemisms suggests to readers that he does not want to embellish the truth but rather present the facts in a ‘black and white’ manner. This is great.The writer juxtaposes the government’s ‘pious Leftists claiming to be too delicate to discuss today what caused the deaths,’ along with himself, ‘[The Government] denounced my rudeness on ABC television and on ABC websites.’ Andrew Bolt is presented and seen to readers as a I wouldn't say 'seen to readers', as that implies a degree of certainty. It matters not whether it actually appeals to the readers or not, you are analysing the possibilities. Try and say something like 'By doing this...Bolt presents himself as a more trustworthy writer, as ...more trustworthy writer than the Government hence the audience are more likely to adopt his view that the Gillard government are unreliable and unscrupulous.

The use of evidence, statistics and quotes from notable professionals by Bolt increases the credibility and validity of his opinions. The sentence, ‘Many times since I’ve recorded those deaths, starting with 9 people who drowned…’ conveys to readers that the writer has engaged in research and is quite eager about this issue. Readers are likely to see Bolt in the position of a knowledgeable pedestal and see credit and worth for his thoughts.Good! The statistic thatThis sounds a bit awks., ‘…the boats were back-soaring from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone,’ positions the audience to feel alarmed and to quickly associate this outcome with the Julia Gillard’s incompetency and complacency. Bolt cleverly singles out quotes from left wing journalists, federal ministers and authorities to attack the flaws in their argument and to exemplify that blame is place on almost everyone except the prime minister. He included Courier Mail’s Dennis Atkins’ quote, ‘We are all responsible for this event…’ in order to appeal to the readers’ sense of reason that every Australian citizen cannot be possibly to blame for the Christmas Island disaster.A feel that you're missing a last point here.

Overall,Minor thing, but try and avoid using words like this in the conclusion. Just get on to the conclusion, instead of saying 'In conclusion', 'Overall', etc. readers are convinced that Bolt’s opinion is valid and acceptable after he has used many persuasive language techniques to cultivate or enhance their beliefs that Julia Gillard is responsible for the Christmas Island Refugee Boat Incident. Don't like this conclusion. Encapsulate the actual 'techniques' employed, don't just say that his techniques work to his favour. Take a short while to briefly summarise how they work in his favour.

I have little idea how VCAA marks these, but I'll say nothing below 8. Your writing is obviously very fluent, although at times it can seem a bit too formulaic and strained, re: intro and conclusion. However, your actual analysis is very good.

Just my two cents on some of your 'reflection' points:
2) I think the micropoint approach is a bit too complicated for an essay of 1 hour. Your safest bet is on the chronological approach, although you can mix it around a bit, such as separating the paragraphs according to techniques used or a specific type of audience aimed at. But what you're doing now is fine.
3) Short conclusion will suffice. Just recap on the stand and tone of the writer, and quickly recap on his techniques, although this is in itself optional. Just try not to approach it to methodically. Saying stuff like, 'In conclusion, the writer employed a plethora of persuasive techniques in the hope of persuading the audience to feel...' is really strained writing.
5) Agreed, but seriously it's quite good.
7) Yeah, I think the sentences are fine. Just as long as they're not too longwinded and over the top, i.e. takes up like 1/4 of the page or whatever.

[lexitu]

Like how you've strongly integrated the image. Sometimes discussing it and the article concurrently can enhance your explanation of how the image and article are complementary.

You need to be careful not to pass judgement on the effectiveness of the persuasion. Whether or not it's of high calibre doesn't matter. Brightsky's feedback is quite good so consider it

"Bolt’s lack of euphemisms suggests to readers that he does not want to embellish the truth but rather present the facts in a ‘black and white’ manner." - Love this.

About 8/10

[werdna]

I will underline key parts of the essay and discuss these in red. Rewording will be done in green.

Herald Sun writer Andrew Bolt’s opinionative article, ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard (17/2/2010),’ consists of many language techniques which collaborate in order to persuade the audience. This opening sentence is far too general and generic. This sentence could be applied to any analysis of any article, which isn't exactly a good thing. These specific language devices Avoid. compel readers to share Bolt’s point of view that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government are to blame for the refugee boat disaster and deaths at Christmas Island. Throughout the opinionative piece Be simple wherever and whenever you can! You could have just as easily said 'opinion piece' , Bolt adopts a hostile and at times condescending tone to illustrate his anger and condemnation for the Labor Government’s actions, namely the relaxation Not the right word to use. Try 'leniency'? of refugee laws.

Bolt launches a contemptuous attack Excellent! on the Gillard Government through rhetorical questions and an effective use of pictorial support. In the early lines of Bolt’s the article, readers are confronted with the straightforward and succinct, ‘But why? And if not now, when?’ which is strikingly followed by ‘before the next boat sinks, or after?’ What are these rhetorical questions referring to? You need to be specific! Also try and weave these quotes into your analysis. At current, these quotes are meaningless as they tell me nothing about the content of Bolt's argument/s. These questions beg an obvious answer, as readers are able to follow the line of reason that at this instant, Gillard should hold blame for the tragic refugee boat incident. The horrific pictorial support above the opinionative piece features a large boat that has crashed up against a cliff and is amidst rough ocean waves. The photo evokes a sense of pity and empathy amongst readers, which lead leads to feelings of injustice for the fate of some of the supposed asylum seekers. After surveying the large elevated boat, readers are directed to the pull-out quote, accompanying the left hand corner of the photo. It contends that, ‘It’s never been the right time to point out the Government was encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea by rewarding those who made it here with the sugar of Labor’s softer treatment.’ The quote aptly summarises the situation to readers, as they are more than willingly to accept that the Labor Government are at fault for this incident. The photo has encapsulated the whole situation and has caused readers to disapprove upon Julia Gillard and her current refugee policies. Good analysis!

Bolt maintains his hostile and patronising tone through repetition of various phrases and occurrences of negatively connotated words. The anaphora of ‘It’s not too soon to blame…’ and ‘It is not too soon for the Sunday Morning Herald…’ is effective in emphasising and listing a number of accusations directed at various people all except Julia Gillard Poor expression. . The reader is therefore impressed Don't be absolute with the intended effect. with the amount of other people or phenomenon that have been blamed and are likely to share the same sentiments with Bolt that Julia Gillard should take some part responsibility as well. Bolt favours How can he favour vocabulary he's used in his own piece? the use of visually explicit words such as ‘Government’s harvest of bodies’ and ‘lured to their deaths’ to paint the Labor government in negative light. These adjectives and descriptions impose encourage the reader to distance themselves from the government and to be astonished by the severe extent of their actions as well as their unwillingness to accept responsibility. Bolt’s lack of euphemisms suggests to readers that he does not want to embellish the truth but rather present the facts in a ‘black and white’ manner. Excellent. The writer juxtaposes the government’s ‘pious Leftists claiming to be too delicate to discuss today what caused the deaths,’ along with himself, ‘[The Government] denounced my rudeness on ABC television and on ABC websites.’ Andrew Bolt is presented and seen to readers as a more trustworthy writer than the Government hence the audience are more likely to adopt his view that the Gillard government are unreliable and unscrupulous.

The use of evidence, statistics and quotes from notable professionals by Bolt Avoid passive voice wherever and whenever possible. Use of the active voice will make your writing more sustained and controlled. increases the credibility and validity of his opinions. The sentence, ‘Many times since I’ve recorded those deaths, starting with 9 people who drowned…’ conveys to readers that the writer has engaged in research and is quite eager about this issue. Readers are likely to see Bolt in the position of a knowledgeable pedestal and see credit and worth for his thoughts. But what does this position readers to do and feel? The statistic that Avoid. , ‘…the boats were back-soaring from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone,’ positions the audience to feel alarmed and to quickly associate Bad expression here. this outcome with the Julia Gillard’s incompetency and complacency. Bolt cleverly singles out quotes from left wing journalists, federal ministers and authorities to attack the flaws in their argument and to exemplify that blame is place on almost everyone except the prime minister. He included includes Write in the present tense. Courier Mail’s Dennis Atkins’ quote, ‘We are all responsible for this event…’ in order to appeal to the readers’ sense of reason that every Australian citizen cannot be possibly to blame for the Christmas Island disaster. You need to weave your quotes in. Don't throw big chunks of evidence into your analysis! You should also try and pull apart some specific quotes and see how even one or two words in each quote can have a forceful impact on the reader.

Overall, readers are convinced You don't know this for sure, so try and avoid being too absolute and 'sure' with the intended effect. that Bolt’s opinion is valid and acceptable after he has used many persuasive language techniques Avoid! to cultivate or enhance their beliefs that Julia Gillard is responsible for the Christmas Island Refugee Boat Incident.

Solid effort! Apart from the things I've outlined above, this essay is really good!

Final score: 7.5/10 or 8/10.

[Slumdawg]

Seeing as Brightsky has already marked your piece I won't go through the whole thing but I do notice that you're having a bit of trouble with your conclusions.

I believe you really should have a conclusion with your analysis, if an assessor sees two good pieces if one has a well crafted conclusion at the end and the other doesn't then the person with the conclusion will probably do just that little bit better.

I agree with Brightsky, try to avoid starting with "overall" it can appear very generic and I'm sure one of the most popular opening words for a conclusion is "overall" so it probably annoys the assessors too. I think concluding with "he has used many persuasive techniques" ends your strong analysis on a low note since the writer doesn't really "use" techniques as such, but they're inherent within any piece of writing which aims to be persuasive.

Here's the "recipe" if you like that I used for my conclusions and it gave me more direction for how I used to write them instead of just giving a general end paragraph which leaves the assessor underwhelmed.

- discuss the likely reactions the article will provoke from different audience groups (this one is VERY important and gives you a chance to discuss something different instead of just repeating yourself)

- discuss the overall style and approach (e.g. formal, informal, dogmatic, didactic, etc.) taken by the author

- effectively restate the author's purpose

That's basically the main three points for your conclusion. Hope that helps!

[azngirl456]

*Note: there is no analysis of the videos as I analysed the articles as they would have appeared if printed out originally in newspapers. (We can only dream of the day when Harry Potter-esque newspapers become a reality)
Sorry it's late!!

The recent deaths from the Christmas island boat disaster has sparked controversy across the general Australian public and has raised issues about lenient refugee laws as well as the responsibility of the Labor Government. In response to this horrific tragedy, many newspapers have published articles to elaborate on this issue, such as the Herald Sun’s Editorial, ‘Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea (16/12/2010)’ and Rob Oakeshott’s opinionative article, ‘PM must be quick with details about Christmas island tragedy (17/12/2010)’ in The Age Newspaper. The Herald Sun’s Editorial outlines that there should be reviews and alterations to existing refugee laws in order to prevent an increase of illegal immigrants arriving to Australia. On the other hand, Oakeshott’s opinion piece emphasises Julia Gillard’s role of Prime Minister and her imperativeness to elucidate details of the Christmas Island disaster as well as to appease any hysteria and conspiracy theories that have arisen. Both forms of media texts aim to appeal to members of the Australian society, particularly those who have a vested interest in refugee laws and the welfare.

Oakeshott’s opinion article is governed by his subdued and forthright tone, which reflects his professionalism as the independent federal MP for Lyne. As Oakeshott is a federal minister, his personal view that, ‘I don’t see a way, nor anyone outside Julia Gillard or key ministers, can value add,’ may be considered as of integral worth due to Oakeshott possessing knowledge of how affairs are dealt with in government committees. Readers are compelled to believe that Oakeshott’s opinions are credible and reasonable, especially his view that Julia Gillard should inform Australians of the recent Christmas Island tragedy rather than forming futile government committees. In the early opening lines, Oakeshott confronts his readers with the juxtaposition of ‘multi-party climate change committee’ and ‘multi-party Christmas Island incident committee.’ The former appears to readers as a reasonably sound and pragmatic committee that Oakeshott is ‘confortab[ly] being involved in [and] appreciate[s ] the opportunity to value add.’ However, the latter contrasts with this with Oakeshott mentioning that, ‘[this committee] is different.’ The audience is likely to feel displeased and confused towards Gillard’s proposal for a committee and her reluctance to inform the facts to Australians regarding the Christmas Island disaster. Oakeshott appeals to readers through the universal value of honesty which is evident in the statement, ‘and the point for [Gillard] to start is the truth.’ The writer follows up this statement with negatively connotated words such as ‘rumour,’ ‘hysteria,’ ‘xenophobia,’ and ‘conspiracy,’ which consequently elicits fear in readers that honesty is already compromised through Gillard’s delay of explaining the details of the Christmas Island disaster.

Similarly, The Herald Sun approached their editorial through a controlled and solemn tone in order to establish the integrity of their newspaper and to demonstrate their sensitivity towards the disaster. The writer describes the incident vividly, using words such as ‘desperate cries’ which is followed by ‘cast into the sea’ and ‘many drowned.’ Initially, the phrase ‘desperate cries’ may alarm readers that asylum seekers are in need of urgent help. However, the extent of the situation heightens when readers come across the phrase, ‘cast into sea.’ At this point, readers may emphasise with asylum seekers and their plea to survive in the harsh seas. However, hopefulness and the ability to help diminishes once readers have read that, ‘many [asylum seekers have] drowned.’ The writer aspires to build up empathy so that readers are placed in a mindset where they believe that appropriate action must be taken to prevent further refugee deaths from occurring. In the next few lines, the writer defines ‘real compassion’ as ‘not tempting asylum seekers to risk their lives trying to reach our shores’ in comparison with Government’s definition of ‘compassion for genuine refugees [causing them] to soften [Australia’s] immigration requirement.’ Readers are able to make the connection that if Australia needed to prevent the high surge of illegal immigrants entering the shores, the government’s lenient refugee laws must be altered. This editorial appeals to the audience’s sense of responsibility as it mentions that ‘the boat that struck the rocks was in Australian waters.’ The adjective ‘Australian’ reminds the audience that the Christmas Island incident occurred closed to home and many more deaths may arise if Australian citizens do not place pressure on the government to change refugee laws.

Rob Oakeshott’s opinionative piece and The Herald Sun’s editorial both feature the results of an online poll. Alongside Oakeshott’s opinion piece, a poll titled ‘Do you think establishing a multi-party committee to examine the facts of the Christmas Island boat tragedy is a good idea?’ shows that 64% of the people involved voted ‘no.’  The poll informs readers that a majority of people who took part are in favour of Oakeshott’s opinion. The audience is likely to conform to the dominant view that forming a multi-party Christmas Island Incident committee is futile and unproductive. A similar effect is achieved with the poll featured with the Herald Sun’s Editorial. The poll poses the question, ‘Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?’ with 88.52% of people voting ‘no.’ Again, readers are inclined to believe the editorial’s view that more strict refugee laws should be implemented.

Both media texts also pose a series of questions to their readers in order to illustrate the ambiguity of details regarding the Christmas Island disaster. The Herald Sun’s editorial questions, ‘How long was it waiting off shore?’ to highlight the possibility to readers that this incident could have been prevented if it were not for the current, ‘compassionate’ refugee laws. On the other hand, Oakeshott begins with simplistic questions such as, ‘How did a boat get so close to the island without being identified?’ to specifically questioning whether there were ‘…locals to valiantly make human chains to throw out floatation devices?’ Readers can understand that the latter reiterates a rumour that has arisen due to Gillard’s unwillingness to disclose facts of the Christmas Island tragedy.

Rob Oakeshott’s opinion piece and The Herald Sun’s editorial expressed their thoughts on the Christmas Island disaster in a calm and civil manner while remaining staunchly forthright. Oakeshott appeals to the audience through truth in order to convince them that it is Gillard’s duty to properly inform Australians of the Christmas Island disaster. The editorial in the Herald Sun used the approach of responsibility directed towards Julia Gillard and Australians to elicit the change of current refugee laws. The ideas in the Herald Sun editorial are likely to be supported and praised by those who would like to see a reduction of illegal immigrants arriving in Australia and prevention of further refugee deaths. However, the newspaper’s public opinions may be shunned by genuine refugees who will find it more difficult to prove their legitimacy if stricter laws are in place. While Oakeshott’s opinionative piece may be upsetting to supporters of Julia Gillard, it nevertheless sheds light into value of honesty and those who believe in moral fibre will favour Oakeshott’s view.

[werdna]

How come you've slashed half the essay?

[azngirl456]

How come you've slashed half the essay?

i dont know why its there, it shouldnt be there....i've looked at it and i didnt include any slashes.

do you know whats wrong?

[azngirl456]

*Note: there is no analysis of the videos as I analysed the articles as they would have appeared if printed out originally in newspapers. (We can only dream of the day when Harry Potter-esque newspapers become a reality)

The recent deaths from the Christmas island boat disaster has sparked controversy across the general Australian public and has raised issues about lenient refugee laws as well as the responsibility of the Labor Government. In response to this horrific tragedy, many newspapers have published articles to elaborate on this issue, such as the Herald Sun’s Editorial, ‘Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea (16/12/2010)’ and Rob Oakeshott’s opinionative article, ‘PM must be quick with details about Christmas island tragedy (17/12/2010)’ in The Age Newspaper. The Herald Sun’s Editorial outlines that there should be reviews and alterations to existing refugee laws in order to prevent an increase of illegal immigrants arriving to Australia. On the other hand, Oakeshott’s opinion piece emphasises Julia Gillard’s role of Prime Minister and her imperativeness to elucidate details of the Christmas Island disaster as well as to appease any hysteria and conspiracy theories that have arisen. Both forms of media texts aim to appeal to members of the Australian society, particularly those who have a vested interest in refugee laws and the welfare.

Oakeshott’s opinion article is governed by his subdued and forthright tone, which reflects his professionalism as the independent federal MP for Lyne. As Oakeshott is a federal minister, his personal view that, ‘I don’t see a way, nor anyone outside Julia Gillard or key ministers, can value add,’ may be considered as of integral worth due to Oakeshott possessing knowledge of how affairs are dealt with in government committees. Readers are compelled to believe that Oakeshott’s opinions are credible and reasonable, especially his view that Julia Gillard should inform Australians of the recent Christmas Island tragedy rather than forming futile government committees. In the early opening lines, Oakeshott confronts his readers with the juxtaposition of ‘multi-party climate change committee’ and ‘multi-party Christmas Island incident committee.’ The former appears to readers as a reasonably sound and pragmatic committee that Oakeshott is ‘confortab[ly] being involved in [and] appreciate[ s] the opportunity to value add.’ However, the latter contrasts with this with Oakeshott mentioning that, ‘[this committee] is different.’ The audience is likely to feel displeased and confused towards Gillard’s proposal for a committee and her reluctance to inform the facts to Australians regarding the Christmas Island disaster. Oakeshott appeals to readers through the universal value of honesty which is evident in the statement, ‘and the point for [Gillard] to start is the truth.’ The writer follows up this statement with negatively connotated words such as ‘rumour,’ ‘hysteria,’ ‘xenophobia,’ and ‘conspiracy,’ which consequently elicits fear in readers that honesty is already compromised through Gillard’s delay of explaining the details of the Christmas Island disaster.

Similarly, The Herald Sun approached their editorial through a controlled and solemn tone in order to establish the integrity of their newspaper and to demonstrate their sensitivity towards the disaster. The writer describes the incident vividly, using words such as ‘desperate cries’ which is followed by ‘cast into the sea’ and ‘many drowned.’ Initially, the phrase ‘desperate cries’ may alarm readers that asylum seekers are in need of urgent help. However, the extent of the situation heightens when readers come across the phrase, ‘cast into sea.’ At this point, readers may emphasise with asylum seekers and their plea to survive in the harsh seas. However, hopefulness and the ability to help diminishes once readers have read that, ‘many [asylum seekers have] drowned.’ The writer aspires to build up empathy so that readers are placed in a mindset where they believe that appropriate action must be taken to prevent further refugee deaths from occurring. In the next few lines, the writer defines ‘real compassion’ as ‘not tempting asylum seekers to risk their lives trying to reach our shores’ in comparison with Government’s definition of ‘compassion for genuine refugees [causing them] to soften [Australia’s] immigration requirement.’ Readers are able to make the connection that if Australia needed to prevent the high surge of illegal immigrants entering the shores, the government’s lenient refugee laws must be altered. This editorial appeals to the audience’s sense of responsibility as it mentions that ‘the boat that struck the rocks was in Australian waters.’ The adjective ‘Australian’ reminds the audience that the Christmas Island incident occurred closed to home and many more deaths may arise if Australian citizens do not place pressure on the government to change refugee laws.

Rob Oakeshott’s opinionative piece and The Herald Sun’s editorial both feature the results of an online poll. Alongside Oakeshott’s opinion piece, a poll titled ‘Do you think establishing a multi-party committee to examine the facts of the Christmas Island boat tragedy is a good idea?’ shows that 64% of the people involved voted ‘no.’  The poll informs readers that a majority of people who took part are in favour of Oakeshott’s opinion. The audience is likely to conform to the dominant view that forming a multi-party Christmas Island Incident committee is futile and unproductive. A similar effect is achieved with the poll featured with the Herald Sun’s Editorial. The poll poses the question, ‘Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?’ with 88.52% of people voting ‘no.’ Again, readers are inclined to believe the editorial’s view that more strict refugee laws should be implemented.

Both media texts also pose a series of questions to their readers in order to illustrate the ambiguity of details regarding the Christmas Island disaster. The Herald Sun’s editorial questions, ‘How long was it waiting off shore?’ to highlight the possibility to readers that this incident could have been prevented if it were not for the current, ‘compassionate’ refugee laws. On the other hand, Oakeshott begins with simplistic questions such as, ‘How did a boat get so close to the island without being identified?’ to specifically questioning whether there were ‘…locals to valiantly make human chains to throw out floatation devices?’ Readers can understand that the latter reiterates a rumour that has arisen due to Gillard’s unwillingness to disclose facts of the Christmas Island tragedy.

Rob Oakeshott’s opinion piece and The Herald Sun’s editorial expressed their thoughts on the Christmas Island disaster in a calm and civil manner while remaining staunchly forthright. Oakeshott appeals to the audience through truth in order to convince them that it is Gillard’s duty to properly inform Australians of the Christmas Island disaster. The editorial in the Herald Sun used the approach of responsibility directed towards Julia Gillard and Australians to elicit the change of current refugee laws. The ideas in the Herald Sun editorial are likely to be supported and praised by those who would like to see a reduction of illegal immigrants arriving in Australia and prevention of further refugee deaths. However, the newspaper’s public opinions may be shunned by genuine refugees who will find it more difficult to prove their legitimacy if stricter laws are in place. While Oakeshott’s opinionative piece may be upsetting to supporters of Julia Gillard, it nevertheless sheds light into value of honesty and those who believe in moral fibre will favour Oakeshott’s view.

[azngirl456]

please, does anyone know why it has come up as 'slashed'? i didnt put any slashes in when i was posting it up

[azngirl456]

It's attached in word document below

but i would still like to know why it's slashed and how to fix it

[_avO]

did u write [ s] (without the space) anywhere?

[azngirl456]

did u write [ s] (without the space) anywhere?

oh yes i did, i'll go fix it and see what happens
thanks

EDIT: slashes are gone