Hey guys,
I was wondering if I could get my language analysis reviewed.
The article is this extract from the Chickens Range Free piece:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q1vFJjjYRFMC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22fancy+a+free+range+chicken%22&source=bl&ots=WtlA6TPoY6&sig=qrLmiWrEJxpzcT9C8PzJKe61Bbs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi12YPFzsrPAhVFHZQKHWqLCiwQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=%22fancy%20a%20free%20range%20chicken%22&f=falseit's the Presenter and also the Caller.
Thank you very much!
In regards to the recent incident concerning “tens of thousands of dollars” of livestock being broken out of “450 sq.cm” cages, a talkback radio host opened a discussion on the matter, giving his opinion of how these “activists” take the law “into their own hands” and how they don’t care about the outcome of their horrendous actions through a tone filled with righteous indignation. He then asks the a caller their opinion, to which they say that the “Australians for Animal Rights” were not involved and how he has been using an “ignorant misconception” of these “hippies and bludgers”, as they only aim to give these animals their rights and suitable living conditions.
Opening with a belligerent and contemptuous tone, the host asks a stream of rhetorical questions, firstly attacking the “do-gooder activists” asking how they can justify their own “idiotic behaviour” of the “nonsense” that went down that night. By attacking these “clowns’” actions and putting it in the form of a rhetorical question, he aims to evoke a sense of uncertainty in the audience by questioning the morals of the law breakers, subtly persuading the reader to side with his opinion. By also attaching a negative connotation to the them, calling them a “do-gooder”, he discredits the activists’ ideologies as being nothing more than the ramblings of the uninformed, who do not have any awareness of the consequences of their heinous actions, furthermore depicting the antecedent events as something that can impact anyone in society. Then, hoping to elicit sympathy for the farmer, the presenter asks rhetorically what the farmer did to “deserve this”, as he’s don’t nothing but try to “earn his living”, by portraying the farmer as a victim who has lost “tens of thousands of dollars”, he aims to highlight the injustices served towards the farmer by the lawless activists, who believe they have the right to “take the law into their own hands”, portraying them as callous, dangerously misguided individuals who believe they have the right to damage property, endanger lives, and disregard the rights of others, in hopes that the audience would side with him.
Now, by contrasting his tone to a dignified yet direct tone, he flips the tables in aim to provide a more relatable scenario towards the audience. The presenter throws another rhetorical question, asking how they “would feel is someone walked into your house and chucked your kids’ rabbits out on the road”. By posing a scenario which could be much more engaging and personal to some of the viewers, he aims to invoke more sympathy towards the farmer in the audience, hoping that they would realise how these “animal liberationists”, who “take the law into their own hands”, can affect anyone and everyone, furthermore hoping that the audience would side with him into believing that the actions of these activists were uncalled for and were ridiculously heinous. By also casting the mantle of the honest hardworking citizen over the farmer, the writer attempts to dislodge the liberationist from their high moral ground, creating the impression that they are “antisocial hippies and bludgers” who should be in gainful employment, opposed to being betrothed to shameful, destructive behaviour. Talking more about the outcome of the undignified attack on the farmers’ chooks, he states that the chooks that were “freed” from their cage were either “eaten by foxes or run over on the road by poor, innocent motorists who didn’t ask to be involved in a crime”, by stating the outcome of the crime, the presenter aims to position the audience into understating that these “activists who break the law when they feel like [are] full of big ideas”, throwing doubt onto the liberationists true intentions, as the released poultry were cruelly left to the whims of fate, furthermore hoping the readers would side with him by casting these liberationists as irrational social agitators, who are no better than urban guerrillas who will use any cause as a vehicle to destabilize the society we have all worked so hard to build.
In response to the presenter’s opinion, a caller called and gave their opinion. Opening with an offended and impassioned tone, they state that they are a “member of the Australians for Animal Rights” aiming to give the audience and understanding, and the other perspective of the events that unfolded that night. They then go on to say that they “were not involved in the incident” and how they would like to “correct [his] ignorant misrepresentations”, by associating the presenter to someone who has a “human-centred view of the world”, who cares only about themselves and not the other animals who help our world, they aim to persuade the audience to now side with them as they care not only for humans but for every living creature that inhabits our ecosystem. They then go on to say that the actions were not “antisocial” as they were freeing these chickens from their inhumane living conditions of only “450 sq. cm, without proper ventilation”. By highlighting the appalling living conditions that these poor chooks have to live in, they aim to justify their actions and make the audience realise that the presenter was merely being tunnel-visioned and not refusing to see the bigger picture. Now in a concerned tone, and in aim to evoke nullification of the presenters’ “ignorant” opinion, they say that “direct action” is the only way for the public eye to realise the severity and “dire plight of the oppressed animals on this planet”, and how that “many people think that they action was justified”, as now the public has come to see the horrendous conditions that these animals are enslaved into. By casting the mantle of the chickens being nothing more than a slave to human, they hope to provoke not only sympathy but also rage as to how these animals are being poorly treated and that they should be able to have the “rights…to breathe fresh, clean air, form relationships and do the things that animals want to do”.
Finally, in the last hurrah to persuade the audience to become a member of the Australians for Animal Rights, or to even believe that animals deserve rights, they go on to say that “in these [atrocious] circumstances, breaking the law to free [and save] those poor creatures was justified”, opposing the presenters’ former beliefs that the liberationist are merely “hippies”, and also insinuating that the presenters’ opinion was complete barbaric as he only believes in rights for humans.
Home
Help
Search
Login
