On the 14th of February 2009, a date widely termed as “Black Saturday”, Victoria experienced the most deadly series of bushfires in Australia’s recorded history, with almost 200 fatalities, and many communities burnt to crisp. (This introduction was quite pleasing, though I don't think a language analysis should use phrases like 'burnt to crisp'. Nevertheless this is promising.) The high fatality rate was attributed to the previous Fire Warning system that had been in place during the bushfires, and many have argued for an overhaul of the system in order to prevent a repeat catastrophe in the future. Such a polemic ("A polemic ( /pəˈlɛmɪk/) is when an argument, debate, or opinion leans toward attacking the other person as opposed to the discussion at hand!" I do not want to see this word misused by you again.) is shared by the Herald Sun’s editorial, “Fires: Time to get serious”, which argues in a predominately concerned and urgent tone that more extreme policies, such as drastic fuel-reduction, fireproofing and faster warnings, are required to prevent such destructive bushfires in the face of global warming. Likewise, The Age’s solemn editorial, “Even as recovery begins, the threat remains” argues that the government must not only support recovering communities but to also implement tougher building codes in areas with a high-risk of fire. Mark Knight’s cartoon takes a different stance and satirises the government for lending only moral support to victims at the expense of more urgent needs.
The editor of the Herald Sun’s article warns that such impending natural disasters will certainly become more dangerous and destructive in the future, and are to be expected. The editor criticises the government’s sense of aloofness from the situation by describing the aftermath of bushfires as “a simple lesson [that] has taken us far too long to learn” (This quotation can be analysed in more detail. For example you could mention the fact that the author is insinuating that the government is learning on the job even though it is supposed to be experienced in these matters, which positions the reader to feel that their faith is misplaced in the government, and to side with the author.), asserting that the annihilation of communities was aggravated by the obsolete measures that remained in the aftermath of previous bushfires, and that the “hundreds dead, thousands homeless and…wholesale destruction” could have been easily prevented by the actions of the entire community. The government is not only tacitly blamed for the loss of life, but also the reader (Where does the author imply that the reader is to blame?), who may feel responsible for not having done enough to save the victims (What? How could they have saved the victims, I am sorry but this doesn't even make sense.), and thus experience sensations of guilt. The frequency of impending bushfires in Victoria is insinuated portended by the editor’s blunt statement that “uncontrollable infernos” and “ferocious firestorms” will “blaze again”, connoting a sense of foreboding disaster and as a by-product he positions the reader to speculate that there may be still further disasters that may yet exceed Black Saturday in terms of destruction, aiming to strike at the reader’s fearful heartstrings (Heartstrings can't be fearful.). The words “uncontrollable” and “ferocious” personify bushfires as fierce and savage beings that are disruptive to the functioning of a community (Excellent.). Drawing upon these sensations of fear in the reader, the editor is able to establish an impetus for the reader to feel alarmed, especially those who may live in high fire-risk areas. Thus, the reader may be lead to conclude that extreme measures are necessary for their own protection, overriding the potential social and economical impacts caused. (Yes, I sincerely hope the rest of this essay is going to be like this.)
The editor aims to elicit the reader (I know what you are trying to say but the expression is poor.) to agree that long-overdue policies must be implemented as soon as possible by asking them if “it is time to build fireproof bunkers” in rural Victoria, a rhetorical question tinged with criticism for the amount of time it has taken to undertake such measures. (The so-called question as you have quoted it here, is not a question because it has no question mark. Either this is not a rhetorical question, or you have forgotten to include the question mark in your quotation.) Such criticism is further compounded upon when it is noted that “plans for [early warning systems]…have been ‘languishing around’ for years”, leading the reader to question why such “significant overhauls”, which could have saved countless lives, were neglected and not implemented immediately after previous disasters (and thereby insinuating that the government have been procrastinating, and have therefore been negligent.). Consequently the reader, in particularly those who were affected by the fires, may feel engendered to feel irate at government officials for not undertaking extreme measures which could have prevented the large loss of life. The editorial concludes by alluding back to the previous “administrative” (It is unclear why you chose to quote this word.) measures that were established in response to the Ash Wednesday bushfires, stating that “even political leaders have conceded that this is no longer good enough”. As a result of this admittance, the reader is positioned to ought to feel the same way as their leaders. (Not convinced by this last point? I think it would be better to put this under the heading of 'expert evidence'.)
While The Age’s editorial agrees that new policies must be implemented, it focuses more so on the reconstruction of the community into safer, “fire-proof” regions. Similarly, the editorial highlights the horrifying “full extent” of the disaster, with entire communities being “totally burnt out”, along with the “soar” of houses that were discovered to have been destroyed. The word “soar” implies that the loss of property is too overwhelming for such a small community to cope with and that the full extent of the catastrophe may never be known. (It is good that you are actually analysing the words the author uses instead of just quoting them. You should aim to do more of this.). Such statements aim to elicit a response from the patient’s empathetic heartstrings (Once again, heartstrings cannot be empathetic. You might get away with saying that the author is "plucking at the reader's heartstrings.", and as a result the reader may is positioned to feel a compassionate desire to help with the restoration of the community. Kevin Rudd’s inclusive commitment to “rebuild each of these communities – brick by brick, school by school, community hall by community hall” is supported by the Phoenix Association, who represent “victims of the 2003 Canberra bushfires”, urging that it is “not only a matter of physical rebuilding but of restoring a sense of community”, which compounds upon the reader’s desire to rebuild by lending past experiences to the editor’s weighted argument. (There might be an element of nostalgia as well.)
The editorial advances its argument by alluding to the previous reconstruction of Darwin after being ravaged by Cyclone Tracy, stating that it “was not the same city as it was before 1974”, highlighting the improvements in “cyclone-proof…specifications”, supporting the notion that in the face of adversity, there are opportunities to not only rebuild communities, but to “redesign towns and make them safer in the process”. (I think the editor means more than just that. He is implying that rather than rebuild the city in its image, they tried to build a city that was even better than the old one by learning from past mistakes such as those rendered apparent by the cyclone.) Drawing upon this line of logic, the editor argues for “tougher building codes” in fire-stricken towns, positioning the reader to learn from the “tales…that lend weight” to the editor’s proposal of building fireproof bunkers and also to become more open-minded. The editor demonstrates that these risks of a future of even more destructive fire, hangs in the balance of nature, stating that “the hotter, drier climate…appears to have taken hold in this state”. (Good.) The words “taken hold” intensify the reader’s sensations of vulnerability and lack of safety, (Yes! You are really getting the hang of this now.) leading them to believe that the building of such “simple [fireproof] structures” are necessary in the long-term. This is albeit a softer approach in comparison to the Herald Sun’s view that “extreme, comprehensive” measures must be “imposed” on Victoria.
Mark Knight’s cartoon on www.news.com.au indulges on in the exact sort of criticism that the Herald Sun dealt out to government officials, suggesting that the government’s response to the bushfires are only transparent (Insincere?) messages of condolences that offer no help to the present or to future situations. Knight portrays an optimistic Kevin Rudd, who symbolises the government (Bonus points goes to the student who writes "Who is being used as a synecdochal representation of the government. 
), standing still with his arms wide open under a visually accented “FREE HUGS” sign, which, when juxtaposed with “BUSHFIRE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE” and “FOOD RELIEF”, stands out to the reader as irrational as opposed to the rest of the bushfire relief effort. (I think you might be missing the point.) Rudd’s hopeful face is tinged with a lack of genuine expression, suggesting that the government’s efforts to offer moral support towards victims are pretentious. (Sounds good.) In addition, Rudd is drawn (You miss a nice opportunity to show a bit more vocabulary here.) staring directly at the reader, attempting to appeal for to the reader’s sympathy to lie within the government (I have no idea what you are even trying to say. Expression, expression, expression.) and not with the victims. Furthermore, Rudd’s expression is contrasted by the overwhelmed and confused facial expressions exhibited by the victims (Good), implying that the government is at odds with the community. (More importantly, the government is shown as being completely oblivious to the plight of the victims!) In addition, Rudd is depicted as standing as still as a statue, (I am confused as to how you are able to tell this, perhaps explain how the viewer knows this is the case.) which serves to symbolise the government’s inability to adapt to change (or take action) and criticises the lack of overhaul in fire-policy. Finally, in contrast with the rest of the frame, fire-fighters are shown to be walking away from the relief effort once it is underway while enjoying a cups of what is presumably coffee, which strikes the reader as lazy and careless (Negligent). This attacks the government’s refusal to modify fire policy as it symbolises the tendency for people to move on from traumatic events without absorbing the potential lessons that can be learnt. (Not convinced.) One of the fire-fighters gives Rudd an unsure glance, extending upon the reader’s pre-positioned (Not a word. I have already suggested an alternative previously.) notions of iniquity (Too extreme, 'iniquity' generally unconscionably immoral, possibly even criminal behaviour. The government has simply been negligent.).
Although critical of the government for failing to enact more effective fire-policies after previous bushfires, the Herald Sun urgently argues that it is finally time to implement extreme measures to safeguard the state against any future bushfires, which are likely to increase in frequency and destructiveness in the future. Likewise, The Age solemnly warns that impending fires in the future are inevitable but takes a softer approach in policy-change that focuses more on the improvement and reconstruction of the communities ravaged by the bushfires, without criticising government officials. This is in stark contrast to Mark Knight’s view that the government could do more to help the relief effort than to simply offer moral support.
There is good analysis, but not enough comparisons are made! The only thing you have managed to compare is the contentions of the three authors, and to some rudimentary extent, the approach they take. If this was the SAC you would probably have a decent shot at an A, with a little bit of luck (It depends to some extent on how strong the MHS cohort is this year), but there isn't enough comparative analysis here to get you any further. I don't care if you have to recapitulate part of the essay in order to make the comparisons clearer, just do something to at least get more comparative analysis out of this thing. As it is, when I read it the overall effect is that you get through the articles, start doing the beginning of the comparison and then flat out STOP, the analysis hasn't been finished. This is not leave the marker with a good final impression of the piece.
Home
Help
Search
Login
