VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 23

<< < (2/3) > >>

scout:

--- Quote from: juicethelemon on October 22, 2018, 06:24:24 pm ---Recent visit from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has ignited contentious debate within Australia, as Australians are conflicted upon the outcome of potentially manifesting into 'becoming' (keep it simple) a republic nation. Titled, “There’s no reason to delay our republic debate,” the anonymous writer rationally avers the dispute as only natural and long awaited by the country and its citizens. However, accompanying the article, is a comment by Leigh Dawson who suggests that the British empire is the only constant within the Australian borders thus destroying it will only prove to be fatal for Australia’s welfare good

The writer initially concedes oppositions to the republic proposal as they illustrate the adverse effects of the divergence. Referencing Referring to “death watch” as the method of choice by Australia who wish to wait until the Queen dies to instigate conversation about this issue implies the cynical disposition of the country and the “disrespect” for the Queen. By acknowledging the opposition’s claims, the writer is clear of the dichotomy that is established by this matter; those who wish for a future for Australia as a republic country and those who deem it inappropriate to the British empire. Hence, the writer compounds a rapport with readers particularly those who are opposed that provides emotional leverage when continuing with this discussion, hence subtly manipulating the readership to agree with the debate to agree to the republic Australia in the near future.

Addressing the presumable ‘disrespect’ that would follow Australia’s decision to break ties with the government, the writer challenges this idea by denouncing it as only plausible under current circumstances.  The writer suggests that it only “makes sense” to instigate the debate under the Queen herself who has for years “manag[ed]” Australia’s Commonwealth affairs.  Given this, the readers are more liable to perceive this notion as logical and hence less phlegmatic by Australians concerning the Queen’s temperament is it just about temperament?. Similarly, deducing the newly wedded couple of Sussex as “intelligent” and “modern adults” as a means to flatter their ability to discern Australia’s decision as pragmatic and almost deferential to the Queen as she is acknowledged to be an essential component to Australian affairs <-- reread this. Presenting the duchess who is an “American” offers correlation with the royal family and Australia’s intentions as the commonality of being controlled by “foreigners” justifies their purport <-- awkwardly phrased. By addressing this, the writer is able to negate Australia’s wishes to segregate from British entities as discourteous hence encouraging patriotic Australian readers to view the country’s anticipated departure as an ability to rebuild the “national identity.”

Yet, opposing to this, Leigh Dawson illustrates that there are “bigger issues” than the questioning of Australia’s “head of state.” Dawson bolsters the appalling behaviour of Australian politics that has failed to see a “single term” prime minister since “John Howard.” Highlighting this, Dawson refutes the oppositions argument as she confronts the fragility of those in power. Certainly, by residing with the Queen, readers are offered a sense of “stability” amongst the volatility that is Australian politics. Thus, readers are more inclined to castigate the rise of Australia as a republic nation in an attempt of maintaining an assured future. Alluding to the countries that have broken international ties with Australia and also the negligence in regards to addressing imperative foreign affairs furthers purports Dawson’s concept that Australia is merely not capable of being equipped with such monumental complications on their own. Listing this countries exposes to the readership of to the possibility of threats that can arise threats of what? And how is this linked to the contention? and therefore meticulously orchestrating orchestrates the question of whether “United Kingdom” should be added to this list. Vehemently posing such an argument, Dawson propels her audience to observe the issue holistically and realise the considerable repercussions that can unfold if Australia chooses to become a Republic nation.

Ultimately, though the anonymous writer suggests Australia becoming a Republic positions the nation towards entitlement of their own identity, Dawson sagely begs the question to Australian citizens who desire to “destroy a system that it not broken” hence suggesting that there are much more demanding issues that need to be addressed by the Australian government.

--- End quote ---

scout:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on October 22, 2018, 09:05:52 pm ---
A recent visit from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has reignited the polarising debate as to whether Australia should become a republic nation. In an editorial entitled “There’s no reason to delay our republic debate”, anonymous journalist for The Age contends that whilst such a change is of no particular urgency, Australia’s antiquated constitutional structure must eventually be altered in order for the country to establish a sense of independence from the Commonwealth and thus tweak the focus of our “national identity” yes. In response to this article, Leigh Dawson of Kew comments that such a change may jeopardise Australia’s political “stability” and as such, may instead prove detrimental to the well-being of the country. good. Tone? Targeted audience?


--- End quote ---

Anonymous:
Just analysed the editorial. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (and if not too much a hassle, could I also please get a score /10?). :)

SpoilerIt’s long been argued that Australia’s republic debate should be postponed until after the Queen’s death, but the recent royal tour has reignited discussion over the issue. The Age’s editorial “There’s no reason to delay our republic debate” argues that genuine discussions have been stifled for too long and that they should begin now rather than be pushed back until after the Queen’s death.

The Age immediately establishes the republic debate as of serious importance, positioning audiences to give it more consideration and perhaps subverting their view that this topic is trivial or of little concern to them. They initially imply that Australia is blissfully ignorant in their attitude towards the debate. Referring to the visiting royals by their authoritative titles of “the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, The Age invoke images of excited crowds gathered and squished up behind fences, rapt that someone so important is visiting where they live. This picture of joy is presented with a feeling of warmness, as they further state that “the people of Melbourne” – everyone – is coming together to make these royals feel like guests welcomed with “open arms”. The Age however then highlights that Australia is naively ignoring a pressing problem “back in” reality, and uses a foreboding tone as they say, “reportedly growing”, to persuade audiences to act now before the problem gets any worse. The Age presents a shock comparison of Australia’s attitude towards the republic debate as tantamount to waiting and watching for someone’s death – a “death watch”. Labelling the current approach as so “gruesome”, macabre and to an extent openly disrespectful, presents it as so problematic that something needs to change now and action towards the issue therefore must be taken immediately.

Having established the importance of addressing the problem, The Age then argues that the past political landscape that once prevented discussion is no longer a hindrance. In effect, the Age’s positioning of this argument implies that there’s no excuse to not start having discussions about a republic now and by extension position audiences to be more receptive to The Age’s contention. Nevertheless, The Age presents a laundry list of past Prime Ministers and their differing views about an Australian republic to illustrate the past political confusion regarding the issue. “Julia Gillard” opted for a passive approach to “selv[e]” it but Tony Abbott aggressively fought “tooth and claw” for Australia to remain under the Monarchy; Malcolm was an ardent supporter for an Australia republic – “famous” for his stance in fact – but did nothing due to conflicting interests in his political party. This sense of confusion is bolstered with political jargon such as “one-seat majority”, “referendum”, “bipartisan”, which portrays the issue back then as complex and confusing such that it wasn’t widely understood. The Age however then highlights that is no longer case, averring that if Bill Shorten is elected, discussions would be simple as the single word “yes” and as such there’s no reason to delay it. The Age places the onus on the reader to act, highlighting that the audience as voters have “a significant choice” next election. Through this call to action, audiences are encouraged to act and in turn help begin discussion about Australia becoming a republic. 

The Age finishes by rebuffing any view that discussion about a republic now is disrespectful to the royal family. Their didactic sentence structure as they say “what the leak … shows” presents their stance as logical, informed and coming from a place of authority whilst the contrary as misinformed and something that audiences shouldn’t side by. They further this  by saying “it make senses” and backing it up with hard evidence that “the Queen … has the experience to manage it”. This appeals to audience’s sense of logic and propensity to not believe in something that’s perceivedly illogical and inclines them to side with The Age.

To this end, The Age’s editorial aims to highlight to their readership that the republic debate has been unnecessarily and illogically been put off for too long. They present the only reasonable position is to start the discussion again, with ultimate hope that one day Australia will become a republic.

Anonymous:
please give me a mark out of 10

In light of the royal tour in Australia, the Age capitalises on this happy event to spark debate, through an editorial published on 10/8, about reforming our state of government. In an even mannerism with underlying frustration, the paper contends to the australians readers of the paper that they should promote the country's inevitable turn to republic. In response to this, Dawson also adopts a similarly neutral tone in his assertion that the state of australia is too fragile to adopt this new system, and denounces the ages claims for a debate as premature.

From the offset, the author hinges his assertion that there's cause for rekindling the republic debate, through channelling to voice of the largest group that oppose this stagnation in australian government; the vehemency of the British, to cast a heavy weight on readers of the magnitude of their inaction. In depicting the warm welcome of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Australia, the Age creates a juxtaposition between this "delightful… happy surprise" with the "impatient… uncomfortable" feelings of the British. The positively connoted words that would elicit elation within the audience are quickly suppressed by the forced guilt of the British people. As such, the Age encourages audiences to acknowledge the political unrest that is the at the core of the debate. By referencing a book elucidating on the false deference to the Queen, the Age attaches the morbid phrase "death watch" to insinuate an unwelcome topic In further reaffirming the dissension, with "unhappy" and "gruesome", he cements within audiences the duality of the debate, pushing them to take a direct stance, and thereby be more receptive to the negative emotions of the British and fold under the weight of it (acquiesce). The author also positions australians to view themselves as pushing even more responsibility on to the royal family, and at the forefront of it, the queen, who's fragile in her old age, on the cusp of becoming a "centenarian". The induced sympathies would therefore posit australian's to acquiesce to surfacing of a debate. Furthermore, the Age creates a hypothetical situation should the stagnation, that would subject australia's ill timed leaving as also producing the adverse effect of being a "loss of one of the monarchy's crown jewels". The reference to australia in a positive lighting helps to disguise criticism in audience's eyes, and thereby allow for sympathy to subsume individual personal gratification that have yet ot be "shirked".

Building on this, the author shifts his gaze onto the lack of action within our own country, cementing within readers' mind who truly is at blame. Prominent political figures, who aren't viewed favourably by the public, are attacked to compound on the negative image surrounding them onto the impressionable audience, and thus negate their opinions to postpone any further discussion within their minds. He reduces their insistence on delaying to mere "fear of antagonism", and so the impure motives are imparted onto readers who are then positioned to further embrace notion that becoming a republic is good for the country and that our own government stands in the way of this. The colloquial use of "fat lot of good that did" also grounds the argument in more understandable terms. As such, he gives audience's a clear target with which to aim their frustrations at.

Bringing the argument back to the royal touring of Australia, the Age shifts to a more hopeful tone that reflects his contention that it's prime time to stir a debate centering around this issue. A call to arms is subtly issued through promoting that Bill Shorten has "promised to hold a plebiscite" that would begin a chain of events to separate ties with Britain, and so adults are made aware of how they could affect change in their government through casting their vote for him. He further builds up moral within readers through claiming that it's not a "sign of disrespect to talk about the issue", which would ease the minds of many who view the topic to be taboo. His depiction of friendly welcome from the Duke and Duchess also coalesces through maintaining them as "intelligent and modern adults", in which the appeal to political knowledge would entice many to ascertain the same traits to themselves and thus bolster their desire for a reformation.

In response to the editorial, thereby focussing on their readers, dawson makes it clear that the Age is being too hasty in its decision and thus reasons logically of the many steps that should come before australia should even begiin to consider becoming a republic. In pointing out the weaknesses in australia's structural integrity, such as the sttistic that there hasn't been a person to "serve out a single term" triggers within audiences the magnitude to which australia has fallen, and such makes them rescind on their viewpoints out of a permeating sense of shame that they have no right to request such a huge change. Further associating phrases that connote inadequacy, such as "poor", the ensuing list of countries with an "ill informed stance" that prompts readers to question whether they should fully place their trust in the government, while also simultaneously overwhelms them with negative evidence to dissuade them from cutting ties with the queen. The following bombardment of rhetorical questions that imply hazardous results that would "destroy a system that's not broken", the guilt-laden audience are led to retract any viewpoint in favour of a discussion, in favour of maintaining the status quo.

While dawson is short and succinct in his commentary that change should wait for the opportune moment. The Age plays on people's emotional vulnerability to condemnation from others to push for a debate on australia becoming a republic.

scout:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on October 24, 2018, 11:24:35 am ---Just analysed the editorial. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (and if not too much a hassle, could I also please get a score /10?). :)

It’s long been argued that Australia’s republic debate should be postponed until after the Queen’s death, but the recent royal tour has reignited discussion over the issue. The Age’s editorial “There’s no reason to delay our republic debate” argues that genuine discussions have been stifled for too long and that they should begin now rather than be pushed back until after the Queen’s death. short & sharp, which is good, but what about tone?

The Age immediately establishes the republic debate as of serious importance, positioning audiences to give it more consideration and perhaps subverting their view that this topic is trivial or of little concern to them. They initially imply that Australia is blissfully ignorant in their attitude towards the debate. Referring to the visiting royals by their authoritative titles of “the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, The Age invoke images of excited crowds gathered and squished up behind fences, rapt that someone so important is visiting where they live. This picture of joy is presented with a feeling of warmness, as they further state that “the people of Melbourne” – everyone – is coming together to make these royals feel like guests welcomed with “open arms”. The Age however then highlights that Australia is naively ignoring a pressing problem “back in” reality, and uses a foreboding tone as they say, “reportedly growing”  - what's 'reportedly growing', provide more context, to persuade audiences to act now before the problem gets any worse. The Age presents a shock comparison of Australia’s attitude towards the republic debate as tantamount to waiting and watching for someone’s death – a “death watch” and so what does this prompt readers to think/feel/do? - always gotta link to contention. Labelling the current approach as so “gruesome”, macabre and to an extent openly disrespectful, presents it as so problematic that something needs to change now and action towards the issue therefore must be taken immediately.

Having established the importance of addressing the problem, The Age then argues that the past political landscape that once prevented discussion is no longer a hindrance. In effect, the Age’s positioning of this argument implies that there’s no excuse to not start having discussions about a republic now and by extension positions audiences to be more receptive to The Age’s contention. Nevertheless, The Age presents a laundry list of past Prime Ministers and their differing views about an Australian republic to illustrate the past political confusion regarding the issue. “Julia Gillard” opted for a passive approach to “selv[e]” it but Tony Abbott aggressively fought “tooth and claw” for Australia to remain under the Monarchy; Malcolm was an ardent supporter for an Australia republic – “famous” for his stance in fact – but did nothing due to conflicting interests in his political party. This sense of confusion is bolstered with political jargon such as “one-seat majority”, “referendum”, “bipartisan”, which portrays the issue back then as complex and confusing such that it wasn’t widely understood. The Age however then highlights that is no longer case, averring that if Bill Shorten is elected, discussions would be simple as the single word “yes” and as such there’s no reason to delay it. The Age places the onus on the reader to act, highlighting that the audience as voters have “a significant choice” next election. Through this call to action, audiences are encouraged to act and in turn help begin discussion about Australia becoming a republic. 

The Age finishes by rebuffing any view that discussion about a republic now is disrespectful to the royal family. Their didactic sentence structure as they say “what the leak … shows” presents their stance as logical, informed and coming from a place of authority whilst the contrary as misinformed and something that audiences shouldn’t side by. They further this  by saying “it make sense” and backing it up with hard evidence that “the Queen … has the experience to manage it”. This appeals to audience’s sense of logic and propensity to not believe in something that’s perceivedly illogical and inclines them to side with The Age - make this analysis more specific to the actual quotes, esp. the 2nd one about the Queen being experienced in this area of politics....

To this end, The Age’s editorial aims to highlight to their readership that the republic debate has been unnecessarily and illogically been put off for too long. They present the only reasonable position is to start the discussion again, with ultimate hope that one day Australia will become a republic.

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page