March - Language Analysis.
I have done an LA on the issue of GST on online purchases of $1000 or less, as this is the topic for my upcoming SAC. These are the two articles I'm analysing:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/retailers-to-redirect-wrath-to-canberra-20110106-19hl0.html?comments=14http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/canberra-must-act-decisively-and-impose-a-gst-on-internet-purchases/story-e6frfhqf-1225982071779Note that I analysed the print versions of these articles, they weren't accompanied by images. Also, the 2nd article is on the Herald Sun Website, but the copy I was given by my teacher was from the Age, so that's why it says in my analysis that it's from The Age.
After a group of major Australian retailers printed an advertisement in numerous publications as part of a campaign against the current GST exemption on overseas Internet purchases of $1000 or less, debate has arisen in the media over whether the tax would truly benefit our nation’s retail sector. Myer CEO Bernie Brookes, an instigator of the campaign, argues in “Canberra must act decisively”, The Age, 5th January 2011, that Australian retailers are being unjustly impeded by the government’s current taxation policy concerning international online purchases, presenting his case in a reasoned and deliberate manner. Conversely, in the opinion piece “Retailers to redirect wrath to Canberra”, The Age, 7th January 2011, Ian McIlWraith criticises the Retail Coalition’s approach to the issue, implying that the retail moguls and the government are both at fault for the manner in which they have dealt with the problem, asserting his point of view with a predominantly sardonic and disapproving attitude. Both writers emphasise the possible impact that such a tax could have on Australian consumers, who are their target audience.
A sense of urgency is established by Brookes in the use of the imperative “must” and assertive “decisively”, implying that a lack of action on the Government’s part will have undesirable consequences. This tone emerges again in the body of the article, where Brookes affirms that the Government should “act now” to contain online retail’s “rapid” growth. This complements his hyperbolic use of “a huge advantage” and the repetition of “disadvantage(d)”, all of which is employed to invoke a response of empathy from the readers by framing the competition between Australian retailers and offshore companies as unbalanced.
Brookes’ argument is periodically interspersed with sections that emanate a conciliatory tone; he admits that “fair competition is good for consumers” who “enjoy” online shopping, but then rebuts that it would be “sensible” for the Government to tax international online shopping. This conveys Brookes’ opinion as being logical and balanced, and acknowledges that his readers have a vested interest in the outcome of the campaign, as they are the ones who would be paying the GST. Brookes also addresses this through the repetition of “in the interests of consumers”, which he stresses in an appeal to the readers’ self-interest.
Brooke’s repetition of “Australia(n)”, when he could instead substitute in synonyms such as “local”, is deliberately applied in order to coerce readers into a response of patriotism. He also draws comparison to sport through the analogy of “a level playing field” and having “the same rules” for all retailers in an appeal to the readers’ values and sense of equality. This is amplified by the use of a second analogy; “a long battle”. By likening the issue to sport and war, Brookes implies that the international retailers and Australian retailers are opponents. Through the use of inclusive language such as “our” and “we” to refer to local retail businesses as a whole, and by referring to offshore companies as “them”, Brookes intends to depict local retailers as united in the face of adversity. Inclusive language is also used to create a connection between himself and the readers, in “...our young people and... our economy”. This accentuates the writer’s attempts to garner the readers’ favour by appealing to their sense of loyalty to Australia.
Like Brookes’ title, McIlWraith’s alliterative headline carries with it an underlying connotation; the word “wrath” in particular implies that the “retailers” have malevolent intentions, subtly portraying the retailers in a negative light. The title leads the reader directly to the subtitle, which utilises the violent imagery of “bashing” to frame retailers as antagonists and consumers as victims in an appeal to the readers’ sense of justice, seeking to incite a response of disapproval towards the retailers’ actions. In the body of the piece, hyperbolic phrases like “a massive blunder” and the colloquial “nuked” are used to vilify and demean the retailers, aiming to incite disapproval of their campaign from the audience. Conversely, Brookes’ use of hyperbole such as “regime”, “detriment” and the aforementioned “huge advantage” serves to align readers’ sympathies with the retailers.
McIlWraith uses statistics to present the retailers’ argument with credibility, for example, “In the USA you have to pay 22 per cent duty”. By conceding that other countries do indeed have less lenient income tax laws than Australia, McIlWraith emphasises the fact that unlike Brookes, he is not for or against the retailers’ proposition, but rather, he is against the government’s and businesses’ management of the issue, thereby presenting his opinion to the readers as considered and rational. He discredits retailers by rhetorically asking “Do they seriously expect a groundswell of support for a campaign that would mean people end up paying more?”, in a blunt criticism that highlights the fact that the retailers were admonishing customers for taking the stance that was in their personal interest. In this way, McIlWraith makes it absolutely clear to readers that he believes that the retailers were wrong to berate consumers so scathingly in their advertisement.
McIlWraith further reveals his disdain for the way in which the Retail Coalition has been conducting itself through the sarcastic use of “some remarkable coincidences”, “parallel universe” and the fact that Morgan Stanley’s Melbourne office “just happens” to have neighbouring premises to Solomon Lew, one of the retail moguls behind the Retail Coalition. This portion of the opinion piece is permeated by an undercurrent of cynicism, alluding to the possibility of covert dealings within the network of businesses affiliated with the group. This allusion to questionable practices within the conglomerate reinforces McIlWraith’s stance and intends to coerce readers into doubting the Coalition’s honesty and integrity, thus positioning the retailers as powerful, hypocritical and exploitative. This is in stark contrast to Brookes’ depiction of the retail companies as victims fighting for equality, in the interest of all Australians.
Both McIlWraith’s and Brookes’ articles carefully use language to sway the audience to agree with their opinion of the Retail Coalition’s campaign to introduce GST on offshore Internet shopping below the present $1000 limit, however, the former neither approves of nor condemns the tax, but rather, the way in which the chain stores have conducted themselves, whereas Brookes seeks to gain support for the levy. He focuses on placating the reader by admitting the benefits of online shopping, then arousing support through appeals to patriotism and the values of fairness and equity. McIlWraith, however, reprimands the Retail Coalition, and attempts to fortify readers’ resentment towards the retailers by emphasising the way in which the group denigrated their customers. These articles show that there are strongly conflicting viewpoints on the issue at hand, and debate is likely to escalate as retailers, consumers and the national economy are further affected by international online shopping.
Home
Help
Search
Login
