Debate has once again sparked regarding the Government’s asylum seeker policies after the recent Christmas Island tragedy that lost the lives of 28 refugees trying to gain entry into Australian waters. In The Age article “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” (December 17th 2010), Rob Oakeshott argues in a predominantly cynical that both the Gillard Government and the Prime Minister herself both need to address the issues and current policies associated with the entry and acceptance of asylum seekers that arrive on Australian shores, while also providing Australian’s with the truth and information necessary. Similarly, the electronic version of the Herald Sun editorial “Gillard Government Asylum policy now all at sea” (December 16th, 2010) aims to highlight in a compassionate tone that the need for a change in the laws is necessary in order to shy away those who not only think that entry and settlement in Australia is easy, but risk their lives in the process. Both articles present their contention to those who also support the idea of the need to change the policies or furthermore, the government.
Both articles begin with a video of the Christmas Island tragedy, in doing so creating a sense of fear among readers. In seeing the story unfold, it immediately allows readers to sympathise with the asylum seekers who attempt this treacherous journey just to gain entry to Australia - due to the loopholes in the current refugee policies- and in doing so risk their lives. As a result, readers may feel a sense of disdain towards the Gillard Government for having risked unnecessary lives because of the flaws in their policies.
In an attempt to strike the compassionate heartstrings of readers, the Herald Sun editorial makes use of emotive language such as “desperate cries” and “threw them against the cliffs”. These expressions connote a sense of terror and disbelief when imagining what these refugees went through. Consequently, readers may see the government as indignant in their actions, which supports the contention that the government need to accept more responsibility for their actions, and act upon them to avoid any such event from reoccurring. Furthermore, Oakeshott’s article attacks Julia Gillard for her inability to speak up and tell the truth with such statements as “...And it must be tackled by the Prime Minister herself “and “...And the point for her to start is the truth”. These blunt statements clearly express Oakeshott’s point of view regarding the current laws and policies for asylum seekers. In turn, readers harbour a sense of aloofness towards Julia Gillard and her government for their immoral behaviour.
The use of repetition of phrases and comments concerning the “truth”, “consequences”, “compassion” and “responsibility” are used throughout both pieces. These words which are interrelated around the central idea and belief that the boat tragedy and its aftermath wasn’t dealt with appropriately forms a continuing persuasion towards the reader, as these words appeal to a sense of compassion for the refugees attempting to gain entry . As a result, readers may feel obliged to conform to the writers’ suggestion that the Gillard Government needs to take action almost immediately before they lose touch with the Australian public, In doing so they may feel a sense of disdain towards the Government for their cruel and harsh actions in not doing enough to curve the rising number of boats entering Australian shores and approaching a seemingly imminent death.
Due to the use of the internet, both articles enabled readers to add their opinions to online polls both centred around the contention of the pieces. This use of statistics provides seemingly irrefutable evidence for those reading the articles, as the votes are sourced from other readers of the very same article being viewed. Furthermore, the use of other statistics in Oakshotte’s article such as “at least 28 people died” – a harrowing statistic that signifies a large scale disaster - further gives his article credibility. In turn, readers feel a sense of iniquity regarding the Government for allowing this to happen. As a result, readers cast the government in a negative light for their behaviour over this issue for their seemingly dishonest behaviour and continuing avoidance of the issue.
Although the Herald Sun article is aims to appeal to a sense of compassion and justice among readers, Oakeshott’s article endeavours to point out the wrongdoings and misjudged approaches made not only by the Australian Government, but more so Julia Gillard in particular. Through the use of poignant videos and alarming polls, both articles seek the truth behind the handling of asylum seekers once they hit Australian waters, the need for revision of current laws and policies, and the need for Julia Gillard to speak the truth rather than shying away over the issue of reoccurring deaths of asylum seekers on Australian shores.
Thanks in advance, I've tried to:
- Correct the common errors of long sentences etc
- Work on my expression although it still needs a bit of work
- DO A MULTI TEXT ONLINE ANALYSIS (Never done one before so sorry if it's not the proper layout/setup etc haha)
Home
Help
Search
Login
