Language Analysis Feedback Pls!!!!

[jacquic]

A language analysis on the article in the following link. Some feedback would be great!

 http://theconversation.com/sports-sponsorship-and-kids-health-who-are-the-real-winners-9845

Every Australian household experiences daily the efficacious ascendancy of advertising. Macniven and Kelly elucidate the detrimental effects and highly influential power that advertising has upon children. The commercial links between elite sports teams and junk food companies have ‘ever-present impacts’ on children and the ‘exposure’ affects the food and drink they ‘like, ask for, buy and consume’. Experts from World Health Organisation (WHO). assert that children should be protected from the harms of advertising. The authors’ appeal to the protection of children with a burdened tone, positioning the reader to feel the urge to take responsibility for the situation. Eli and Nutritionist respond to the article with different contentions. Eli contradicts Macniven and Kelly’s opinions, altercating that food companies are not the only ‘questionable sponsors for sport’. Mirroring Macniven and Kelly’s view Nutritionist advocates with concerned tone the connections between sporting events and the consumption of junk food.

 With urgency resonating Macniven and Kelly emphasise the importance in the need to ‘shift the focus’ from commercial sponsorships to ensuring the viability of local sports clubs. The authors establish obligation from the audience to take responsibility for the issue, as Nutritionist does through stating ‘it concerns me greatly’. The magnanimity of the issue is accentuated through the use of statistics, immediately making the authors viewpoints more objective than subjective or personal. The use of statistics also allows the reader to understand the puissant affects that advertising can have upon children and the ‘paradoxical promotions’ of junk food as sports sponsorships. Macniven and Kelly believe that the increasing child obesity rates in Australia is as a result of ‘junk-food advertising’. However, Eli suggests with a cliché that ‘it’s the parents who hold the purse strings’ and therefore it is them who are responsible for the ‘obesity epidemic’. In contrast Eli's urgency castigates the promotion of sports and junk food together suggesting that it sends ‘contradictory and confusing messages to kids’. The use of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘us’ allows the audience to feel part of a collective action against protecting children from the probable dangers of advertising, thus empowering the reader as a stakeholder and no longer simply a bystander. By incorporating a large picture at the beginning of their article Macniven and Kelly show the reader young Australians, the stakeholders and potential victims of the ubiquitous influence of televised commercials. The picture shows the fervour Australian sports bring to the nation, the children shown are all bedecked with AFL paraphernalia, once again emphasising the aptitude of advertising and branding. The authors appeal to the reader’s sense of familiarity through the use of recognisable brands such as ‘Coca-Cola, Coles, Cadbury and Redbull’, immediately identifying the enormity of the issue.

Macniven and Kelly with a logic yet concerned tone inform the reader that sports sponsorship and junk food is a money-making farce, hardly a desire to ‘emulate the actions and successes’ of Australian sporting heroes. The authors then attack AFL players, Adam Goodes and Dale Thomas for promoting products that are ‘hardly the fuel of champions’, positioning the reader to believe that advertising is simply to increase sales by focusing on ‘those of a more impressionable age’ rather than having the children’s best interests at heart. Macniven and Kelly identify the irony of advertising junk food alongside elite athletes and sporting events in allowing the reader to understand that junk food is not the food of elite athletes. Nutritionist acknowledges that sports sponsorship is important and teachers and parents are reluctant to ‘criticise the hand that feeds them’ positioning the reader to believe that although it is a preeminent concern there a few willing to publically chastise the junk food sponsors. With disparity, Eli believes it is unfair to suggest the questionability of junk food sponsors when there are still ‘gambling’ advertisements that children are exposed to. The authors address the concern of alcohol advertising and the greater impact it has on vulnerable children than adults. Macniven and Kelly highlight the links with AFL and ‘beer and pub food’ and WHO’s warnings that ‘children should be protected from the harms of alcohol promotion’. This appeals to the parents of Australia and allows them to contemplate the alcohol advertisements that their children are exposed to.

Macniven and Kelly show the reader that it is time for change and provide solutions and alternatives immediately providing hope for the audience in knowing that change can truly occur. By acknowledging the importance of sports sponsorship the authors suggest ‘shifting the focus’ from junk food while ‘ensuring sports clubs remain commercially viable’. The reader witnesses an optimistic tonal shift as the authors begin providing anecdotal success stories of Victorian and Western Australian ‘government-funded health-promotion foundations’. They then suggest national rollouts of state success as an ‘optimal solution’. Alongside the solutions provided Macniven and Kelly provide a compass for the future of Australian children by ‘promoting participation in physical activity’. Through the phrase ‘gone are the days of tobacco prominence in sport’ the authors are allowing the reader to visualise the removal of junk food sponsorships and encourage that the change has been made before and can be made again. Macniven and Kelly address the idea of a ‘holistic approach’ to contest other health and social issues relevant with sport. Nutritionist reiterates this in stating with a determined tone that sport and junk food ‘should not be promoted together’. In contrast, Eli believes the ‘occasional hamburger isn’t a big deal’ if children are participating in sport. Eli’s somewhat casual tone places responsibility on parents rather than the sponsors, positioning the reader to question their own actions in regards to their child’s wellbeing.

Macniven and Kelly conclude their article with the urge for the audience to be consistent in the debate in tackling issues rising from sports due to unhealthy sponsorship. Nutritionist closes with a vehement statement about the links between promoting junk food and sports. Eli revokes the feeling of responsibility as he concludes by placing obligation upon parents to control what their children eat.

[janet.maylin]

Every Australian household experiences daily the efficacious ascendancy of advertising. Macniven and Kelly elucidate the detrimental effects of efficacious advertisingand highly influential power that advertising has its influenceupon children, contending that... The commercial links between elite sports teams and junk food companies have ‘ever-present impacts’ on children and the ‘exposure’ affects the food and drink they ‘like, ask for, buy and consume’. You're just really stating facts here. You want to talk about what Macniven and Kelly wants to say about these facts. Experts from World Health Organisation (WHO) adopt a burdened tone toassert that children should be protected from the harms of advertising. The authors’ appeal to the protection of children with a burdened tone, positioning the reader to feel the urge to take responsibility for the situation. I can't be entirely sure here, but I don't think you're meant to talk about 'positioning' in the introduction - save it for the body paragraphs.Eli and Nutritionist respond to the article with different contentions. On the other hand, Eli contradicts Macniven and Kelly’s opinions, altercating that food companies are not the only ‘questionable sponsors for sport’. Mirroring Macniven and Kelly’s view Nutritionist advocates with concerned tone the connections what are these 'connections'? between sporting events and the consumption of junk food.

 With urgency resonating Macniven and Kelly emphasise the importance in the need to ‘shift the focus’ from commercial sponsorships to ensuring the viability of local sports clubs. nice The authors establish obligation not so sure about this phrase from the audience to take responsibility for the issue, as Nutritionist does through stating ‘it concerns me greatly’. The magnanimity of the issue is accentuated through the use of statistics focus on specific statistics! which ones are you referring to?, immediately do not assume that the readers automatically agree!making the authors viewpoints more objective than subjective or personal why does this matter? promoting credibility?. The use of statistics also allows the reader to understand the puissant effects that advertising can have upon children and the ‘paradoxical promotions’ of junk food as sports sponsorships. positioning them to feel.... and hence may... Macniven and Kelly believe that the increasing child obesity rates in Australia is as a result of ‘junk-food advertising’. However, Eli suggests with a cliché that ‘it’s the parents who hold the purse strings’ and therefore it is them who are responsible for the ‘obesity epidemic’. Analyse ths cliche! In contrast Eli's urgency castigates the promotion of sports and junk food together suggesting that it sends ‘contradictory and confusing messages to kids’. The use of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘us’ allows the audience to feel part of a collective action against protecting children from the probable dangers of advertising, thus empowering the reader as a stakeholder and no longer simply a bystander. By incorporating a large picture at the beginning of their article Macniven and Kelly show the reader young Australians, the stakeholders and potential victims of the ubiquitous influence of televised commercials. The picture shows the fervour Australian sports bring to the nation, the children shown are all bedecked with AFL paraphernalia, once again emphasising the aptitude of advertising and branding. The authors appeal to the reader’s sense of familiarity through the use of recognisable brands such as ‘Coca-Cola, Coles, Cadbury and Redbull’, immediately identifying the enormity of the issue you practically have it but again link to the impact on readers: they may feel fear for the potential ramifications that may arise from this influential advertising.

OK so I don't really have time to go in detail with the other paragraphs but I'll put quick summaries:
Body paragraph 2: I notice you tend to quote and then go on to say the intended effect but you don't really stop at how they are doing this. For example: "Nutritionist acknowledges that sports sponsorship is important and teachers and parents are reluctant to ‘criticise the hand that feeds them’ positioning the reader to believe that although it is a preeminent concern there a few willing to publically chastise the junk food sponsors." How would the reader be positioned to believe this? What feelings are evoked?

Body paragraph 3: "The reader witnesses an optimistic tonal shift as the authors begin providing anecdotal success stories of Victorian and Western Australian ‘government-funded health-promotion foundations’." <-- I really like this, nice. But pleasee go on about why the tone changes! What is this tonal change intended to do? "Through the phrase ‘gone are the days of tobacco prominence in sport’ the authors are allowing the reader to visualise the removal of junk food sponsorships," is also really good but what is the impact? Why do this? "Macniven and Kelly address the idea of a ‘holistic approach’ to contest other health and social issues relevant with sport. Nutritionist reiterates this in stating with a determined tone that sport and junk food ‘should not be promoted together’. In contrast, Eli believes the ‘occasional hamburger isn’t a big deal’ if children are participating in sport. Eli’s somewhat casual tone places responsibility on parents rather than the sponsors, positioning the reader to question their own actions in regards to their child’s wellbeing." You are just telling here rather than analysing.

Conclusion: You want to focus on comparing their their techniques rather than what they say.

Overall: Try to practise on getting both the 'how' and 'why' right. You know how to do it but you tend to answer one but omit the other. I actually really liked the first sentence of the introduction, but the only reason why I crossed it out was because I just didn't feel the sentence was particularly necessary. Sorry if I appear a bit harsh. Anyway, if you have any questions, feel free to ask! Nice work