Week 3 – January 24th – Language Analysis – Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard
The recent tragedy of a boat carrying twenty eight or so asylum seeker refugees sinking off the coast of Christmas Island has come to forefront of the Australian media and has appealed to a broad cross section of the community, particularly to those who are interested in human rights. In the opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (17/12/10) Andrew Bolt forwardly indicts that it was the Labor government’s responsibility for the cause of the deaths due to their “weak laws” and blames it towards their failure to address repeated warnings regarding the tragedy.
Straight away, Bolt questions the statement that “It’s too early to blame…” with repeated rhetorical questions such as “why?”, “when?” and “Before…or after?” to create the situation that he, along with his readers, must consider to whether the government will continue to let refugees sink to their deaths because of reluctance to changing policies. This is accompanied by a large cropped photo focusing on an asylum seekers boat surrounded by violent waves to create a tragic atmosphere of the incident to support Bolt’s view. The use of questioning engages the reader to respond to the issue as they feel involved to agree with Bolt’s negativity towards Julia Gillard. It also raises the reader’s sense of urgency for the government to partake immediate action before the death toll increases for asylum seekers.
Bolt continues his argument by emphasizing the evidence reflecting the number of asylum seeker deaths on Australia shores by using given figures such as “these latest 28 or more” to “just like up to 170 others”. He uses the figures to oppose against the government’s underestimated claim that the toll was 25, whilst explicitly mentioning that the deaths included children. Furthermore, Bolt uses an anecdotal example of the deceased Afghan Norooz Ali Iqbal and his 9-year old son to reflect on how their hopes to reach Australia along with five Afghans that have gone to the extremity to die at sea to escape the navy because of the new policies. Subsequently Bolt reinforces this dismal truth with repeated mentions of extreme words, “the dead”, “those deaths” or “dying at sea” to oppose against Warren to subject families to heighten their fear and sympathy towards the reality of asylum seeker families dying at sea. It instigates distrust towards the Labor Government for their disrespects concerning the miscounted who were considered as “scum”.
Bolt incorporates much sarcasm into the Government policies as the “sugar of Labor” to portray the rich, artificial side to the seemingly sweet face of the Labor Government. He mockingly compliments the “sugar” by stating how unbeneficial it is for refugees followed by his use of strong words such as “never”, “of course”, “compassionate” to reflect on his depiction of Julia Gillard’s “horrified” response towards the death poll as a result. He illustrates the rest of the government as “too delicate” by drawing an analogy to a group of pompous ladies that “lift up their skirts in horror and denounce my rudeness” to let the readers associate the government’s view on the rest of the nation. For readers this metaphor generates an image of how pretentious the government is and provokes a disloyalty towards them.
Throughout the article, Bolt’s accusatory and exaggerated tone is indicated through a generalization to denigrate the government. Bolt repeatedly asserts that “they lie” and it is “too soon” for the government to critically discuss the issues of their own policies which is played by a pun “It’s never been the right time for the Left…” to persuade readers that the government needs prioritize the rights of asylum seekers arriving in Australia. Additionally, Bolt increases his use of “too soon” at the beginning of sentences with time words such as “today… not the right time” and “weeks, even months” to add build up and tension in the reading pace by pointing to clear reasons of why Gillard’s policies can be seen as morally wrong. The readers are inclined to feel unjust and to fear that they are partly responsible for gambling with the safety and lives of refugees.
From the beginning of the article, Bolt’s confronting heading is a forward attack towards Julia Gillard and the Labor Government over his outrage on the incident of the refugees. Throughout the article his contention is clear and he often uses expert opinion along with his own view in conjunction with his arguments. Bolt displays his willingness to oppose the government through his strong emotive words and shows a static view on the issue. Through the implication of repetition, attacks and aggressiveness, Bolt presents himself as an effective opposition against the Labor government and makes it difficult for his readers to contend to his opinion.