January essays – Week 4 – Language Analysis – ‘Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea’ – Editorial + ‘PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy’ – Rob Oakeshott
In the editorial ‘Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea’, published in the Herald Sun website on the 16th of December 2010, the editor maintains a matter of fact tone when contending that future asylum seeker tragedies, much like the recent happening off Christmas Island, may well be avoided by a reform in the Gillard Government’s asylum seeker policy.
That sentence was perhaps a little too long. Regarding the same matter, an opinion piece by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott entitled ‘PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy’, published in The Age website on the 17th of December 2010, follows a more confrontational tone while emphasising that the Gillard Government had failed to provide the Australian population with a sufficient amount of information following the tragedy. Both pieces are aimed towards a similar audience; consisting of people with a true concern towards the issue.
Intro was fairly good imo, but try not to let your sentences get too long.The headline of the Herald Sun editorial ‘Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea’, effectively uses a play on words to compare the Gillard Government’s asylum seeker policy to the remains of the boat that crashed into rocks off Christmas Island
I hadn't thought about it that way before... good work. This not only undermines the Gillard Government’s asylum seeker policy but also gives the reader a sense of what the editor’s contention is. Conversely, the headline of Rob Oakeshott’s opinion piece ‘PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy’ utilises no persuasive technique, instead Oakeshott uses straightforward language to indicate what his piece encapsulates.
good, but don't forget the impact on the reader. "This graphic headline is likely to position readers..."- especialy nessicary for the first one.The sub headline
tagline? subheading? sub headline sounds awkward of the Herald Sun editorial ‘THE confirmed deaths of 27 men, women and children as their boat was dashed to pieces in raging seas at Christmas Island must spell the end of the Gillard Government's flawed asylum seeker policy’
this quote is too long employs emotive imagery, not only to appeal to the readers sense of compassion but also causing the reader to contemplate the viability of the Gillard Government’s current asylum seeker policy. Unlike the Herald Sun editorial, Rob Oakeshott’s opinion piece does not include a sub headline.
Oakeshott's article is being a little neglected here. Perhaps write something like 'Oakeshott choses to employ the use of ............. to evoke a simmilar response from his readers...' or 'Although Oakeshott's article contains no tagline, he aims to achieve a simmilar result to that of the sun article through the use of..."The editors of the Herald Sun begin by immediately establishing their main contention when stating that ‘the Government must realise it cannot continue with policies that only encourage refugees to make the hazardous journey’. The editors attempt to appeal to the reader’s emotions, depicting a vividly horrifying scene when referring to the agony the asylum seekers would have endured when ‘the sea threw them against the cliffs of the island that serves as Australia's offshore detention centre’
That quote is too long, however it is well integrated. Also, that first bit sounds a bit fragmented. The editors establish that ‘there have been drownings before’ suggesting there had certainly been many more people who would have experienced unthinkable anguish.
The editor then explains the reason for the then Rudd Government’s decision to ‘soften our immigration requirements’ stating it was due to ‘compassion for the many genuine refugees hoping to lead new lives in this country’. This is followed by the editor presenting the idea that ‘real compassion would have been shown by not tempting asylum seekers to risk their lives trying to reach our shores’. This would undoubtedly cause the reader to crucially reflect upon the editors’ contention. The editors’ contention is further brought forward when stating a solution would be to ‘reinstate the temporary protection visas brought in by the Howard government’ and claiming this event ‘also calls for further consideration of Tony Abbott's demand to turn back the boats’. The editors bring the piece to an end by plainly declaring the Gillard Government ‘must accept a greater degree of responsibility when the boats get this far’ and ‘the 'pull' factor of quick resettlement in Australia must be removed’.
This was an improvement on the last paragraph, however I would recomend less quoting and more analysing. The middle part (orange) was very very very though imo, but you need to analyse a quote if you're going to use it. I often make this mistake too, I will see a whole lot of good quotes that are ripe for integration and I can't resist throwing them in to form parts of my sentences, however it means that I end up with a paragraph full of quotes that have not been analysed (or only partialy analysed).Rob Oakeshott on the other hand, takes a slightly different approach when approaching his contention. Oakeshott begins by informing the reader of Julia Gillard’s proposed ‘Christmas Island incident committee’ which Oakeshott sees as something ‘I, nor anyone outside Julia Gillard or key ministers, can value add’
didn't quite fit, try cutting down the quote. This, perhaps, suggests to the reader that the Gillard Government is wasting time rather than addressing the Australian people regarding the issue. Oakeshott builds on this by claiming ‘this is a moment for the Prime Minister to lead, not a moment for a committee’ This is followed by Oakeshott progressively approaching his contention when he states ‘The Australian people need a comprehensive statement of everything she knows about exactly what happened that led to the death of at least 28 people’. In doing this, Oakeshott creates a sense of mystery within the reader, implying the Gillard Government had not provided the Australian people with the information they deserved to know. Oakeshott then states that any rumours surrounding the issue ‘cannot be allowed to go unanswered for too long’ as they would be ‘fanned by refugee advocates, white extremists, and 'stop the boats' advocates’ creating ‘hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy’. Without a doubt these claims made by Oakeshott paints a picture of chaos surrounding the issue, causing the reader to further question the Gillard Governments actions. This confusion ‘must be tackled by the Prime Minister herself’ implying it is Julia Gillard’s sole duty to address the Australian people regarding the unknown surrounding the issue. Oakeshott brings his piece to an end by stating the obvious ‘a boat crashed, at least 28 people died and islanders watched hopelessly and helplessly’ which is followed by a litany of questioning on the Gillard Government’s part.
this was good, but don't overquote and go a bit deeper with your analysisSimilarly, both pieces contain a poll regarding the issue. The poll on the Herald Sun website entitled ‘Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?’ shows a hefty 88.52% of voters voting ‘No’. This indicates that the majority of the population feel a reform in the Gillard Government’s asylum seeker policy should be mandatory. The poll on The Age website entitled ‘Do you think establishing a multi-party committee to examine the facts of the Christmas Island boat tragedy is a good idea?’ shows 64% thinking a committee is not a good idea. Overall, these polls may sway the reader’s opinion and point of view towards the issue depending on the weight of the poll results.
Both pieces from the Herald Sun and The Age employ many language techniques as well as non language
visual and statistical/graphical (non language sounds odd) techniques such as the polls, to persuade the reader and sway their point of view
generic (but it matters less because it's the conclusion- but still try not to do it). In this way, the editors of the Herald Sun reach their contention that a reform in the Gillard Government’s asylum seeker policy should be urgently addressed while Rob Oakeshott emphasises his contention that the Australian people were given very little information regarding the Christmas Island tragedy.
That was much better than your other essay. The key things I would say to try to fix up are:
1) use shorter quotes (ask yourself if a quote can be made shorter and still fit and if it can then do it)
2) If you use a quote then analyse it. I do this too and it means that there's a lot of radical quotes drifting around in the paragraphs. It can make you a bit lost when you read it and it looks like there's no focus.
3) I felt (and this is possibly just my own preference) that it wasn't an evenly laid out essay. You sort of went Introduction->Herald Sun analysis -> Age Analysis-> conclusion but that meant there wasn't much comparison (and lines of comparison you used in the first two paragraphs weren't very deep). I'd do this to try to fix this problem:
Find places where the two writers have either the same aim or the same technique and compare how one writer, say, uses anaecdotal evidence to evoke sympathy wheras the other writer may use strongly emotive imagery and words to evoke the same emotion.A good strong essay overall, and definately huge leap forward from the first essay.
Home
Help
Search
Login
