Thanks Nick.
Without reading through your comments yet, here is my own editing. Hopefully it is better.
The local council of Greenville recently made a proposal for all houses and businesses to install solar hot-water systems by 2010. Houses and businesses that who have not installed solar hot-water systems by then would be charged a “greenhouse levy”. The initial response by the Greenville community was mostly positive; however some residents have expressed anger over the proposal. Published in a local newspaper, an opinion piece and its accompanying cartoon written by high-profile local businessman and advocate for nuclear power, Bob Walsh, contends that the proposal which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not appropriate for the small suburb of Greenville. The title, “Solar Sellout” intends to illustrate the proposal of mandatory solar panels as a ‘revenue raiser’, questioning the motives and agenda of the council. The article is laced with a livid tone and pleas passionately with other residents to resist the proposal and for the council to scrap its policy of mandatory solar panel installation by 2010.
The cartoon which accompanies the article immediately draws the readers’ attention and juxtaposes the consequences of either installing solar panels or resisting the change. The cartoon depicts the mayor as a money grabbing giant who can’t be trusted and a clear social divide in the community. Those who can are illustrated as having white roofs are those who can afford the solar panels and thus are left alone by the mayor. Conversely, those with black roofs symbolise those who cannot afford solar panels and thus the mayor preys on them through the “greenhouse levy”. This clear contrast intends to portray those without solar panels as victims, thus appealing to the community’s desire for equality and fairness in society. The significance the mayor taking money from the residents is that it represents the proposal as a ‘revenue raiser’ thus positioning the audience to feel that the council has a hidden agenda and cannot be trusted. The irony of smoke bellowing from the solar panelled houses is that while the proposal is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is apparent that the effects of this proposal on the environment will be minimal. Thus, the audience is lead to question whether the council’s agenda is pure, with the ultimate realisation being that it is most probably not.
Mr Walsh commences his article by attacking the “radical environmentalists” who have made the council their “captive”. By describing environmentalists as “radical”, Mr Walsh evokes a sense of fear in the audience, questioning whether environmentalists can be trusted and if they are safe to be consulted with. This prompts the reader to question the integrity of the council and their ability to fend off environmental lobby groups who have their own vested interest and agenda. The term “captive” forces the reader to question the credibility of the council in its ability to make logical decisions on the community’s behalf. Such an implication is likely to leave readers questioning the real motivations behind the council’s decision. The use of the loaded term “incredibly” compels the reader to consider the proposal as ridiculous and out of line. Furthermore, its use belittles those who are supporters of the proposal and leads the reader to consider supporters of the proposal as absurd. A passionate tone is apparent throughout the opening paragraph and epitomised when the author says “The cost? $200 per house, and $500 per business!” By asking a rhetorical question and then answering it himself, Mr Walsh ridicules the suggestion of the cost to the consumer. This appeals to the readers sense of financial security and makes the suggestion seem ridiculous.
The author continues with his loaded language saying that “this is a blatant abuse of residents’ rights...” in an attempt to appeal to the audiences self interest and desire for freedom. By describing the citizens as “innocent” Mr Walsh creates a divide between the council and the residents of Greenville. This intends to imply to the reader that the residents are the victims of the proposal and the council is set to take advantage of the residents. This compels the reader to feel a sense of resistance to the change and to see the council as the enemy. This conflict is further exasperated when the author states that if the proposal was to become policy it ,“would represent the victory of an undeserving, lazy, hippie riff-raff”. “Victory” intends to highlight that there will be a loser from the outcome of the proposal and that if resistance is not generated, it will be Greenville community. This plays on the readers desire to be a ‘winner’ and prompts the reader into action against the proposal.
Mr Walsh then diverts attention away from the issue and highlights the councils ‘blind eye’ towards problems in Greenville such as inadequate infrastructure such as “school facilities” and “the public library”. This intends to capture as many residents as possible as being affected by the council’s inaction, thus infuriating the reader with the council and further broadening the gap between residents and the council. This is apparent when Mr Walsh contends that the mayor would “rather rob the residents’ blind” than fix the problems in the community. Such a statement further conveys to the reader the author’s belief that through this proposal, residents are essentially being preyed upon by a somewhat tyrannical council. An appeal to financial hardship is made when Mr Walsh contends that the plan would “disadvantage [those] who can’t afford to build ‘green’”. ”. Such a statement would raise serious concern amongst the low socio-economic groups in the community, undoubtedly coming to the fearful conclusion that their financial security may be seriously compromised under the proposed changes. This is juxtaposed with the “well-off lefties who want to buy their way out of a guilty conscience”. The use of “well-off lefties” intends to evoke a sense of unfairness in the reader, whereby inequality is highlighted. This intends to highlight the absurdity of the idea that money can somehow make the “well-off lefties” less accountable for greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Walsh again makes use of exclusive language to highlight the battle that exists when he says “why expect the rest of the community to shoulder the burden?” The repetitive nature of this argument instils a sense of resentment towards the council. The battle is again exemplified when he says “They don’t like us being comfortable. They hate the thought of us enjoying ourselves. They want us to suffer.” The continual use of exclusive language evokes resentment towards those who aren’t on the side of Mr Walsh, thus compelling the reader to side with Mr Walsh’s argument. Furthermore the reader is led to feel victimised which evokes anger towards the council due to their apparent attack on the reader’s livelihood.
In a bid to add credibility to his argument, Mr Walsh utilises statistics by stating that even if every Australian household installed hot water systems, “greenhouse gases would only be reduced by...just 5.1%”. The use of these statistics is employed not only to add credibility to his own argument but to discredit the council’s claim that its proposal would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The absurdity of the councils claim is then epitomised when the author says “Greenville only represents a tiny fraction of that 5.1%” so “how can one suburb’s actions affect the whole world?” The authors satirical use of this rhetorical question aims to embarrass the council and its proposal, thus compelling the reader to believe the council’s argument has been discredited and that Mr Walsh’s is the most valid. Furthermore, Mr Walsh appeals to the reader’s traditional values when he describes “solar panels [as] eyesores” on “Greenville’s... beautiful heritage”. This is designed to play on the readers love for their home and to act as a resistance to change. In an appeal to the reader’s sense of fear, Mr Walsh warns that this proposal would result in a, “return to the dark ages”, thus instilling a sense of concern in the audience of the repercussions of this proposals implementation. The continual description of environmentalists as “hippies” is intended to evoke negative connotations in the reader’s mind and to stereotype all environmentalists as ‘weed smoking radicals’. By further degrading the supporters of the proposal, such labelling techniques aim to further discredit the proposal. This stereotype creates a sense of distrust of environmentalists and therefore prompts the reader to disagree with their arguments.
Finally, Mr Walsh proposes his own alternative to this proposal and challenges the mayor to “lobby governments for more nuclear power plants, rather than squander public money on frivolous solar panels”. The term “frivolous” intends to ridicule the proposal and compels the reader to feel that there are far more effective alternatives than the council’s current proposal. Furthermore, contrasting the current proposal with his own proposal, allows Mr Walsh to appear knowledgeable on the issue, thus enhancing his credibility. By playing on the readers sense of self-interest, financial insecurity and suspicion of authority, Mr Walsh prompts the reader to consider that the councils proposal would be ineffective and would unduly repress individual freedoms and rights; inappropriate for Greenville and the greater good.
Home
Help
Search
Login
