Language Analysis

[kani]

Hi everyone

I was wondering if anyone could provide some feedback on a LA piece I wrote today? Any constructive criticism will be greatly appreciated!

Analysis is of this article here.

Thank you!


Recent political controversy surrounding the Safe Schools Program has reignited debate surrounding LGBTI communities and the extent of ideological influence at school. Jill Stark, a senior writer for ‘The Age’, joins the discussion by heavily condemning the “religious zealots” challenging the Program, exhibiting its absolute necessity to protect the “vulnerable children” within the “cultural war”.

Stark frames her piece with a tenor of incisive indignation as she ruthlessly attacks the “religious right” who have begun an inquiry into the Program. Employing a proliferation of negative connotations, she scathingly labels them as “relentless”, “vicious” and “abhorrent”, painting a damning portrait of absolute moral abjection within the minds of her readership. She undermines the opposition’s credibility, claiming their “objective” to be to “create a culture of misinformation and fear”, drawing a parallel between the medieval “Dark Ages” and current events. Presenting their actions as almost downright criminal, she deems their inquiry of the Program to be holding “the march of equality… to ransom” and asserts their moral corruption in building “their privileges on” “inequality”, evoking outrage and indignation from the readers. In portraying the conservative groups as conspiring “crusaders” of backwards ideologies, Stark weakens their credibility and influence over her readers, aligning her readership alongside herself in their opposition of the “bigotry” of the far right. Additionally, she depicts their attempts to sabotage LGBTI campaigns as “desperate” and “hopeless”, suggesting both their efforts and beliefs to be foolish and further denigrating their reputation in the eyes of the public. Encompassing her readership into the debate with her repeated use of inclusive pronouns such as “we”, “us” and “ourselves”, Stark compels her readers to respond with righteous outrage at the immorality and foolishness of the conservative groups, lest they themselves fall among the ranks of the damned “religious zealots”.

To pose a clear contrast with her unequivocal condemnation of those who question the Safe Schools Program, Stark presents the LGBTI children with a manner of sympathy and pity. Beginning her piece with the poignant imagery of bullied twelve-year-olds to besiege her readers with the vivid pathos, she describes the “vulnerable children” as innocent “kids” and “child[ren] who live… in fear”, depicting them as frail victims of the “culture war”. Appealing to the humanitarian instincts of her readership, Stark aims to elicit sympathy towards the wretched children, and corresponding anger towards the inhumanity of the adults who manipulate them as “cannon fodder”. Juxtaposing the “political and moral courage” of those who support the Program and the conservatives who “dress up their bigotry,” Stark paints a clear dichotomy within the perception of her readership as to the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ sides of the debate. She further eulogises the Program itself as one that “fosters empathy”, “encourages young people to be themselves” and the “march of equality”, values clearly aligned with “the country of the “fair go”” that the reader is presumptively attached to. Additionally, Stark exhibits an array of statistics to affirm both the necessity of the Program (“75 per cent of LGBTI young people had experienced… bullying”) and public support for the LGBTI community (“72 per cent of the public support [marriage equality]”), establishing both her own credibility on the subject and the logical and ethical basis of the Program. Thus, Stark corrals her readership into agreement with herself, showcasing the utterly unquestionable morality of the Safe Schools Program and the complete lack of morality of its opposition.

The two visuals accompanying Stark’s piece serve to reinforce her dichotomisation of the debate. Alex Ellinghausen’s photo of Liberal senator Cory Bernadi is shrouded with shadowy lighting, his condescending expression and rigid demeanour eliciting both fear and instinctive dislike from the viewers. The portrayed aloofness discourages the viewers from attributing any notions of credibility and likability to him, instead being distanced by his aura of cruelty and moral indifference; as such, many may be more inclined to accept Stark’s denigration of him and his faction as “religious zealots”. In contrast, the still from Maya Newell’s film ‘Gayby Baby’ is brightly lit and presented with a tranquil palette of cool hues. The young boy within the frame embodies complete innocence, his nakedness and closed eyes paralleling the appearance of newborn foetuses and babies, depicting a vulnerability that viewers feel compelled to protect. Alongside the innocence of the child, the heart tattoo on his chest symbolises love, and viewers are invited to see that homosexual relationships are as ‘pure’ as any other. Alternatively, the expression may be interpreted as one of emotional pain and suffering, the child becoming despondent at the bigoted intolerance of society; viewers are incited to feel outrage and disappointment at the society that has ruined such an innocent child, and to channel that anger towards the “religious right” antagonised in Stark’s writing.

Voicing her uncompromising condemnation of conservative groups and unequivocal support for the Safe Schools Program, Stark invites her readers to share in her derision of the “zealots” with “dark ages” ideologies. Whilst readers supporting marriage equality and LGBTI rights will welcome her voice, conservative readers may be provoked by her attacks, and the article is likely to have generated much heated debate at its time of publication.

(855 words)