[English] Herald Sun editorial + Rob Oakeshott opinion language analysis

[Water]

First one was crappy, and I re did it.






Language Analysis, Double Article

The controversial tragedy leading to the deaths of 27 asylum seekers rang alarm bells of the Australian public and since then, has skyrocketed to the forefront of the Australian news and political arena.  The event has also reignited the ambivalent issue of the Gillard’s relaxed asylum policy that has seen the reemergence of the illegal people smuggling market into Australia. The coupled texts, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea,” an editorial by The Editor, published on December 16th 2010, Herald Sun and the opinion article “PM Must be quick with details about Christmas Island Tragedy,” by Rob Oakeshott, The Age, published on 17th December 2010, address the issue with deprecation of the Gillard government’s actions and assertion of a need for a remedy.  Oakeshott contends that the Prime Minister must confront the issue then act upon it. A similar view is held by the Editor, who demands with urgency, the need to tighten Australia’s asylum policies. The coupled texts, are directed to an older audience – university students and educated civilians, to call for immediate action to rectify the “flawed asylum seeker policy” that has seen nothing but “boats…dashed to pieces.”

From the onset, confronting statistics highlight the Editor’s tone initial tone as assertive and scathing to offer transparency on the issue. This is illustrated through the provocative “confirmed deaths of….” exemplifying to the audience that the tragedy, was in fact, black and white, rather than shades of gray – an image the Gillard Government had attempted to create. As a result, the author undermines the position of the government as untrustworthy, compelling the reader to side with him/her against the government by provoking feelings of anger and outrage. Through highlighting the deaths of “27 men, women and children,” the author also paints the government as cavalier and unreliable in the protection for asylum seekers, who are the victims.  This is designed to incite a sense of apprehension in the minds of the reader of the future of other would-be asylum seekers who are likely to fall under the same fate.  Thus by provoking the heartstrings of empathy in the reader, the author positions the reader to view the asylum policy as a nauseating portrait of “hazardous[ness].” This is supported by confronting the reader with the moving image of the the deseperate cries of asylum seeker.”

Having established his/her arguments, the editor later shifts to an empathetic and didactic tone to offer logic and reasoning to his audience compelling them to agree with his proposed solution.  Employing rhetorical questions like “How long was it waiting off shore? ….More than 80 asylum seekers on board?” instills mistrust in the reader of the government’s actions for being negligent and dismissive of a boat, had lead to the recent deaths. It also raises discussion amongst the editor’s audience in the possibility of the government’s reluctance to recognize the issue.  By playing on the ambivalent feelings of the reader, the author further asserts his contention through the emotive “pull factor…must be removed” and proposing a “reinstatement of temporary protection visas.” He appear as confident and coercive in the demand for change from the government and this is designed to offer certainty to the reader in a confusing issue. Moreover, the author’s credentials as an editor of the Herald Sun serves to heighten his position in the eyes of the reader as  knowledgeable, respectable and a confident leader in the discussion. As a result, the author compels his audience to side with him/her and his/her proposed solution, which “harsh” will allow “Genuine refugees… [to] find themselves able to lead new lives in Australia.”

A diverging approach is adopted by Oakeshott who is equally assertive and authorative throughout his article. In the introduction, Oakeshott is immediately portrayed as robust and ardent through the inclusive neither “I…nor anyone outside Julia Gillard or key ministers” to ridicule the “Christmas Island Incident committee” as unnecessary. Reinforcing this notion, Oakeshott rhetorically scathes how such a committee can also possibly “value add”.  This is designed to invoke disgust in the minds of the reader of the government’s lack of action and portray them as a government who will rather delay the issue. This could distance many readers as the government appears to be indecisive. However in turn, also promotes the author’s position by creating a bonding of trust between the reader and the author, as he appears to be well-informed and researched in the debate. By undermining the position of the government, Oakeshott offers his wisdom intended for Gillard to steer her in the right direction. The author’s wisdom offered is also his proposed solution. Thus by paralleling the two components through his patriotic and commanding “She must lead us” and “The Australian people need”, the reader’s expectations of Gillard are manipulated and is added more weight as she is portrayed as a leader who must be decisive and stern. However, is failing in these at the moment.

In an appeal to the hip pocket nerve, the author establishes various statistics such as “education market, our third-highest export…has been severely damaged,” to elucidate the damaging effects in the act of prolonging the issue. In the eyes of the reader, it is concerning as the author notes the destructive long term effects such as the culmination of “xenophobic fear and hysteria” in the community. Through this, the reader is invoked a sense of fear and insecurity in the distortion of behavior in a community, which in retrospect should have been peaceful and culturally-tolerant. Thereby, the reader is compelled to side with the author, who beckons for transparency in the recent tragedy and harmony in Australian communities regarding the issue. In the mind of the author, only through addressing the issue first hand, can the Gillard government rectify the disasters that their foreign policies have created. The author also highlights his credentials as an independent federal MP to illustrate his adamant concern over the reignited issue and to suggest to the reader his impartiality which invites trust. Through this, the reader also recognizes Oakeshott’s position in parallel to Gillard’s, as highly recognized and respectable, thereby adding credibility to his arguments and his text as a whole.

The coupled articles are both contrasting and similar in their values and approaches. Whilst the editor takes a more definite stand to call for action in the issue, Oakeshott appears to be more understanding and sympathetic with the government. Yet despite this, the authors’s contentions are consistently in parallel, in beckoning for an urgency to remedy the foreign policy. Different techniques are also employed to illustrate a concern. The editor appears to employ statistics to stir fear and doubt within the minds of the reader. At the same time, the effect is juxtaposed by Oakeshott to exemplify the calamity of the issue. Although, the authors offer different angles from which the issue is approached, however, inherently, both demand clarity and a change in Australia’s plagued foreign policies.