The Herald Sun Online’s editorial ‘Gillard Government Asylum Policy now at sea’(16 December 2010) and Robert Oakeshot’s opinion piece appearing in The Age Online entitled ‘PM Must be Quick with Details about Christmas Island Tragedy’ (December 17, 2010) focus on the recent issue regarding the sinking of an asylum seeker boat off the coast of Christmas Island. Maybe try and refer to the fact that they were the online versions in a different way, instead of saying 'HS Online' or 'TA Online'. Maybe rephrase the above sentence to make it more explicit that they are the online versions, because the audience/visuals/etc will be different, so you need to make it obvious, not hidden. The two pieces appeal to similar audiences- of people interested or concerned about the issue, however they approach the issue in very different manners.
The approach of the Herald Sun editor is primarily to use The editor of the Herald Sun primarily uses emotion through language and video to
contend I find that 'contend' is a dull word. Maybe use 'argue' as it has at least more 'meaning'. that the crash was an indirect cause of Labor policy and that asylum seeker policies from the Howard era should be reintroduced. The Age writer on the other hand uses the same mediums of language and video but argues in a more reserved, conservative tone that the prime minister should quash media and community speculation through a transparent display of facts.
The Herald Sun’s editors and
Rob Oakeshott You didn't state his name in the introduction, therefore making it confusing to the reader.. I thought you were talking about Rob Oakeshott as a key part of the issue, not the writer of the the second piece. both aim to persuade the reader through
complex use of language Slightly evaluative. Besides, what's the point of saying the use of language is 'complex'? Wouldn't that downplay your analysis instead of adding to it? . Through the graphic description of ‘raging seas’ and the ‘desperate cries of asylum seekers’ being ‘cast into the sea’ The Herald Sun
’s editorial aims to evoke a strong sense of sympathy and concern for the asylum seekers. This sense of sympathy is likely to make the reader more open to later suggestions of a more ‘compassionate’ approach to the issue, as is suggested when the editor proposes that
‘one way of showing [real compassion] would be to reinstate the temporary protection visas’ This quote could easily be broken up. But nice work with the quotes above; they are brief and to the point, although the intended effect could have been expanded. which were the hallmark of the Howard government’s asylum seeker policies.
Unlike the approach taken by the Herald Sun editor, Oakeshott
uses complex language Before you said that the pieces are similar in that they both use complex language. However, I know that what you meant to write is that they have different AIMS. Make this clearer through better use of expression. with the aim of dousing emotion and choler. Oakeshott implies that rumors regarding the incident are ‘being fanned by refugee advocates, white extremists and “stop the boat” advocates’ and further adds that such rumors are likely to trigger ‘hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy’ in the general community. When this attack on extremism is coupled with Oakeshott’s reserved tone and conservative calls for ‘facts’ and ‘the truth’, the reader is likely to be compelled to remain calm and think rationally and logically about the issue. Oakeshott further implores his readers to not contribute to a ‘void’ which is ‘quickly being filled with misinformation or second hand whispers’ in a final attempt to seek restraint and conservatism amongst his readers. This is in stark contrast to the aim of the Herald Sun’s editorial which
aimed to solidify and fuel emotional hysteria rather than subdue readers. This part is really good! In the middle of this paragraph, however, I feel there's slightly too much quoting happening.
Both the editorial and Oakeshott’s article use, as a primary technique, direct calls for some sort of action to be taken. In Oakeshott’s piece, the situation is described as ‘a moment for the Prime Minister to lead’ and address ‘allegations that have already been made [about] the Australian government’. He adds further that ‘there is an information void [which] Australian leadership must fill’ in what is likely an attempt to influence readers by providing a direct, hard call for change. Readers
often are Swap these two words around. susceptible to such calls for action as they will seek a certain, simple way forward and method of resolving the issue. Furthermore, statements made by Oakeshott regarding the Gillard government’s need to lead can exploit political ideals regarding a strong, robust and attentive government which may exist in some readers.
Likewise, the editorial repeatedly calls for a direct change. After attacking Gillard’s laws, the editor calls for the government to ‘reinstate the temporary protection visas’. This acts as a centralised, direct and simple solution to the issue which is likely to appeal to readers.
This is also emphasised by the way in which the Weak expression. editors repeatedly mention TPVs as a possible solution to the issue more than three times in the editorial. This is likely a secondary technique which is employed by the editors in an effort to ensure that their calls for change remain cemented in the readers’ minds.
In addition to the language devices used by both writers, audio-visual devices are also used with the aim of adding to the article. The Herald Sun uses three videos with the probable aim of evoking strong emotive responses from the viewer. All three videos are likely captured by bystanders using mobile phones and they consist mostly of pictures of the waves crashing over the boat and passengers being plucked from the water by navy officials. Further, the audio component of the videos is likely to trigger emotive responses amongst readers. Particularly in the first video, the cameraman is heard describing the situation as ‘horrible’ and ‘as bad as it gets’. He further adds that people are being ‘smashed up on the rocks’ and that he can
hear people ‘
hear people yelling and screaming’. In addition to the commentary of the camera man, the second video also includes sounds of faint screams and violin music to further evoke sympathy. When combined, the visual images of the boat and its passengers drowning, the sounds of screaming and the comments of the commentators in each video are likely to draw a sympathetic response towards the asylum seekers and perhaps question how or why they were unprotected.
Good analysis, although you probably didn't have to analyse every one of those videos. The emphasis should be placed more on the actual language of the piece. The Age’s video is of a different nature. Taken from a channel ten news broadcast, the video is a fairly unbiased, un-emotive piece. The piece is likely used to provide context for readers. The unemotional video was
possibly Don't use these kinds of words. It makes it seem as though you yourself are unsure about your own analysis. Hence, your marker will lose confidence in what you have to say. chosen to mimic the tone presented in the main article- one of conservative restraint, whereas a more passionate video piece would be likely to work against Oakeshott’s aim of ensuring a less emotive debate. Although the video does use some imagery which could be regarded as emotive in nature such as when Matt Dorran describes the ‘atrocious conditions’ at Christmas Island, the overall tone is a conservative one.
Finally, both articles employ the use of a poll. The broad aim of this is to display to the reader that community support exists for one side of the issue and this could be loosely regarded an attempt to sway the reader to ‘follow the pack’ so to speak. The other aim of including the poll is possibly to further engage readers by providing them with a method of contributing and giving them a feeling of empowerment and importance with regards to the outcome of the issue. In both articles the polls display an overwhelming support for what is loosely the writer’s contention and thus the writer is loosely supported by it.
The Herald Sun’s editorial and The Age’s opinion piece approach the broad issue of asylum seekers in Australia in different ways. One seeks to incite choler and passion, whilst the other seeks to subdue it. Both writers also employ the use of language, audio visual material and a poll
in order to sway readers to their widely differing viewpoints Generic. .
A good essay. Definitely an improvement on last week's essay, so kudos to you for that. 
In some areas, you could go in more depth with the intended effect on the reader. Also, it should have been more emphasised that these pieces are part of the online platform - and hence the effect statements and purpose statements should have been more tailored to the fact that both pieces were published online. Another minor issue is that I feel there could be a little more sophistication in the analysis, as this is a VCAA requirement.
Final score: 7/10.
Home
Help
Search
Login
