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

[vea]

Texts: Maestro and On the Waterfront
Context: Encountering Conflict
SS Aim: 40+

[vea]

January Week 3: Language analysys

  The opinionative piece, “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard”, by Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun, 17/12/2010) discusses the ongoing issue of asylum seekers in Australia and highlights the contentious issue about the asylum seeker boat sinking. Bolt contends that Julia Gillard is to blame for the recent events and explains how the Labor government must tighten asylum seeker laws in order to prevent asylum seekers from thinking that they can get into Australia easily. Designed to denigrate the Labor party and their actions, Bolt embraces an aggressive and arrogant tone as he attempts to position readers to agree that the Labor party needs to act quickly while simultaneously defending his honour.

  Bolt commences the article by stating the statistics of the recent asylum seeker boat incident and other incidents that have occurred in the past, “these latest 28 or more people to drown were lured to their deaths - just like up to 170 others”, “November last year was also not the right time, even after a few more boats had sunk, including one off Halang Island carrying 19 Afghans”. This is his method of giving readers a sudden realisation that the events have already happened and that asylum seekers are not just about refuges trying to migrate to Australia but that deaths have been caused. In turn, readers will note the seriousness of the issue and be more prompt to agree with Bolt’s arguments. Furthermore, by using the word “lured”, he depicts asylum seekers as mice being lured in with cheese.  This is used to imply that just like mice going after cheese, asylum seekers are coming to Australia because they think that they will receive a “good welcome” and that it is the Labor government’s fault for the asylum seekers’ deaths. As a result, readers are likely to agree that the Labor government’s “soft policies” are no good for the boat people and causing many of their deaths.

  Pejorative words are employed by Bolt to paint a picture of the Labor government. By describing the Labor government as “pious Leftists”, Bolt illustrates Labor as a group of people with radical views and by labelling their actions as “criminally reckless”, he vilifies them and reduces them to the same level as murderers and thieves, people who bring havoc to the public. In the article, Bolt goes as far as to accuse the government for “pressuring its boats to delay rescue". This is used to plant a thought in readers’ minds, making the government sound evil for planning such things and is apt to make them think that the recent events are definitely the government’s fault.

  Accompanying the article is a photo from the Herald Sun which shows an asylum seeker boat before it is about to crash into the dangerous cliffs of Christmas Island. The icy cold water and the rough ocean waves symbolise the perilous journey that the boat people faced on their voyage to Australia. In addition, by showing the boat before it is about to crash and capsize, readers are forced to sympathise with the asylum seekers because they know of the fate that lies ahead of them. The angle of the shot that the photo is taken from is another feature of the photo. It shows the asylum seeker boat in the distance and displays how close yet how far the boat people are from Australian soil. Finally, Bolt’s words on the top left hand corner of the photo reading in large and clear letters “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” reinforces all the arguments in his article and resonates within the picture as if they are words coming from a greater power. This is likely to cause readers to think that the fates of these boat people are no in their own hands, but in the hands of the Labor government.

  Through his highly aggressive words and attacks, Bolt has positioned readers to see the many flaws of “Gillard’s weak laws”. Through the use statistics and negatively connotated words, Bolt effectively criticises the Labor government and makes it difficult for readers to side with the Labor government.

(706 words)

[brightsky]

January Week 3: Language analysys

  The opinionative piece, “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard”, by Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun, 17/12/2010) discusses the ongoing issue of asylum seekers in Australia and highlights the contentious issue about the asylum seeker boat sinking. Bolt contends that Julia Gillard is to blame for the recent events and explains how the Labor government must tighten asylum seeker laws in order to prevent asylum seekers from thinking that they can get into Australia easily. Designed to denigrate the Labor party and their actions, Bolt embraces an aggressive and arrogant tone I wouldn't say arrogant. That's leaning towards evaluation. Change to something like 'passionate'.as he attempts to position readers to agree that the Labor party needs to act quickly while simultaneously defending his honour.

  Bolt commences the article by stating the statistics of the recent asylum seeker boat incident and other incidents that have occurred in the past, “these latest 28 or more people to drown were lured to their deaths - just like up to 170 others”, “November last year was also not the right time, even after a few more boats had sunk, including one off Halang Island carrying 19 Afghans”. This is a bad way to quote the article. Don't chuck in big chunks.This is his method of giving readers a sudden realisation that the events have already happened and that asylum seekers are not just about refuges typotrying to migrate to Australia but that deaths have been caused. In turn, readers will This change in tense is a bit awks.note the seriousness of the issue and be more prompt to agree with Bolt’s arguments This seems a bit forced. The whole article is about Bolt using language to try and persuade readers to 'agree with his arguments'. Try and focus on explaining HOW he actually does it, how the specific technique employed appeals to the reader such that they will be inclined to 'agree with his arguments'.. Furthermore, by using the word “lured”, he depicts asylum seekers as mice being lured in with cheese.  This is used to imply that just like mice going after cheese, asylum seekers are coming to Australia because they think that they will receive a “good welcome” and that it is the Labor government’s fault for the asylum seekers’ deaths.This is good. As a result, readers are likely to agree that the Labor government’s “soft policies” are no goodThis is leaning towards colloquialism. for the boat people and causing many of their deaths.

  Pejorative wordsI don't like this start. It feels as if you are name-dropping, which isn't the point of the analysis. You can mention pejorative words, but try not to be so obvious. are employed by Bolt to paint a picture of the Labor government. By describing the Labor government as “pious Leftists”This is good quoting., Bolt illustrates Labor as a group of people with radical views and by labelling their actions as “criminally reckless”, he vilifies them and reduces them to the same level as murderers and thieves, people who bring havoc to the public. EXPAND on this. How does this effect APPEAL to the reader? Why is it potentially so effective? It might seem obvious, but state it anyway.In the article, Bolt goes as far as to accuse the government for “pressuring its boats to delay rescue". This is used to plant a thought in readers’ mindsHorribly generalised, doesn't add to your analysis., making the government sound evil for planning such things and is apt to make them think that the recent events are definitely the government’s fault.A little bit simplistic in your use of words.

  Accompanying the article is a photo from the Herald Sun which shows an asylum seeker boat before it is about to crash into the dangerous cliffs of Christmas Island. The icy cold water and the rough ocean waves symbolise Symbolise doesn't seem to be the right word.the perilous journey that the boat people faced on their voyage to Australia. In addition, by showing the boat before it is about to crash and capsize, readers are forced to sympathise with the asylum seekers because theyAmbiguous pronoun. Try and avoid. know of the fate that lies ahead of them. The angle of the shot that the photo is taken from is another feature of the photo. It shows the asylum seeker boat in the distance and displays how close yet how far the boat people are from Australian soil. Finally, Bolt’s words on the top left hand corner of the photo reading in large and clear letters “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”Bad quoting again. reinforces all the arguments in his article and resonates within the picture as if they are words coming from a greater power. This is likely to cause readers to think that the fates of these boat people are no typoin their own hands, but in the hands of the Labor government.The ideas are there but you seem to stop half way in your analysis.

  Through his highly aggressive words and attacks, Bolt hasDon't change tense. positioned readers to see the many flaws of “Gillard’s weak laws”. Through the use statistics and negatively connotated words, Bolt effectively criticises the Labor government and makes it difficult for readers to side with the Labor government.

Yeah, I agree with the mark given by Water. There are some good ideas, but you fail to really get into it. Also, try not to reiterate the same/similar word structure for your topic sentences. It makes your essay sound strained and formulaic. Language can also, at times, be a bit over-simplistic and a bit slack. Also, word length, albeit at this stage not really the thing you should be worrying about, can also inhibit your capacity to really explore the techniques. (Obviously you can fit more ideas and whatnot into an 1000 word essay than you can a 700 word one.)

[leona0123]

Hi there,
Brightsky and Water seem to have it pretty much covered but I would just like to add some advice on using quotes. When quoting, try to weave it in so that the sentence/paragraph still makes sense if the quotation marks were taken out. For example:

He gives the number of deaths that have resulted from many incidents that have occurred, stating that ‘28 or more people... [and] up to 170 others’ have died recently, along with ‘five Afgans [who] died in blowing up their boat’ in April last year and ‘19 Afgans’ whose boat sunk in November last year.   

Although this is probably a bit lengthy (one quote probably would have been sufficient), you can see how it still makes sense when the quotation marks are removed. I have added the words in the square brackets to further enhance the flow of the sentence.

Hope this is useful
Leona.

[werdna]

I'm not going to go over the whole thing as the others have got most of it covered, but I will quote specific parts of this essay that I found problematic.

In turn, readers will note the seriousness of the issue and be more prompt to agree with Bolt’s arguments

This is generic. 'Persuasive techniques' work differently, and therefore have different impacts, in different articles. A rhetorical question in one opinion piece will have a totally different intended effect and purpose when compared to another opinion piece. Hence, you've really got to branch out the impact on the reader and make it specific to the context of the issue as well as the audience Bolt has targeted here. Steer clear from general statements like the one above; you haven't stated why the audience would be prompted to agree with Bolt's arguments.

As a result, readers are likely to agree that the Labor government’s “soft policies” are no good for the boat people and causing many of their deaths.

Building up on what I said previously, I think you're only just touching on the reader effect. The fact that readers would see that the 'soft policies' are no good for the boat people, is a given. You need to expand on this and discuss the emotional, social and personal impact such an accusation would provoke. Wouldn't the 'soft policies' urge readers to denounce the Labor government? And wouldn't it elicit some form of sympathy for the asylum seekers? There is more to it; so be specific.

Pejorative words are employed by Bolt to paint a picture of the Labor government.

This statement is wrong for a few reasons. As someone pointed out earlier, you shouldn't make the 'persuasive techniques' glaringly obvious. Secondly, try and avoid the passive voice in any essay. You'll notice that if you use the active voice more often, your essay will be more sustained and controlled. Right now you've got the passive: 'Pejorative words are employed by Bolt..' This should be changed to the active: 'Bolt employs pejorative words..' or something similar.

The angle of the shot that the photo is taken from is another feature of the photo.

Weak expression.

This is likely to cause readers to think that the fates of these boat people are no in their own hands..

'Cause' and 'think' are not the right words to use in this context.

Bolt has positioned readers..

Don't be absolute with the intended effect.

Bolt effectively criticises..

Avoid evaluating the piece or its arguments.

Also with the length of your essay, it should be slightly longer in my opinion. Other than these things, this essay was a good, solid effort.

Final score: 7.5/10.