[English] Herald Sun editorial + Rob Oakeshott opinion language analysis

[Christiano]

Hey peeps, so my texts are:

Text Response: Cosi, On the Waterfront(film)
Context(Identity & Belonging): - Growing up Asian in Australia, Bruce Dawe poetry
SS Aim: 40+

[Christiano]

I've probably written about 2 full length pieces of LA in my life, 2 for my sacs and 2 for each exam in year 11.  I put quite a bit of effort with metalanguage in this one. I do realize I have a long way to go compared to everyone else. Any constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. I'm sorry it was put up so late, I had a hard time putting it together. Here goes ..

In the Herald Sun’s online editorial titled ‘Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea’, it is argued in a concerned yet measured tone that the governments flawed asylum seeker policy is causing the deaths of refugees and that the policies need to be reassessed. Similarly presented through an online medium, The Age’s opinion piece by Rob Oakeshott is titled ‘PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy’. Oakeshott adopts a predominantly rational and formal tone to argue that the government and the Prime Minister need to address the issue of the acceptance of asylum seekers into Australia and that they should stop the rumours that are circulating the recent tragedy by declaring the facts. Both articles are targeted at the general public, but particularly target those who are involved in the law making process. Oakeshott’s piece also specifically targets the Prime Minister, given his position as a prominent federal MP.

The writer of the Herald Sun dysphemistically describes the asylum seekers’ journey to Australia as ‘hazardous’ as they encounter ‘raging seas’ and hearing ‘the desperate cries of the asylum seekers cast into the sea’. The writer intends to point out the conditions that the refugees were subjected to as an indirect result of the Labor Government’s imperfect policies. In effect, sympathy and alarm may be invoked in readers towards the asylum seekers.

Furthermore, the writer employs a measured tone throughout the article so that the readers may view the writer to be reasonable and may feel more open to suggestions. As a result, these suggestions such as  ‘[considering] Tony Abbott’s demand to turn back the boats’ and helping to solve the problem by ‘the reinstatement of temporary protection visas’ may be seen as logical and acceptable by the readers. By the same token, Oakeshott also takes up a measured, as well as rational tone throughout the article in order to instil an authorative vibe to his suggestion that the Prime Minister should quash these rumours. This may influence the readers, and specifically his targeted audience, to take his insight seriously.

Moreover, Oakeshott asks a clump of thought provoking questions in one instance, such as ‘How did a boat get so close to the island without being identified?’ and ‘Where were the various arms of government in all this?’. In doing so, the readers are confronted with the implications of the lack of action by the government. Additionally, Oakeshott uses the terms ‘information void’ and ‘rumours’ to connote the lack of hard facts, which serves to compound the complacency of the government that the readers have been prepositioned with. In turn, the readers may further harbour a sense of insecurity with the current government and raises eyebrows in regards to the ability of the government to deal with these issues effectively.

Both sources make use of online multimedia in a similar fashion to substantiate their arguments. Polls are used with the aim of integrating the readers into the issue. The majority vote ‘No’ in the Herald Sun’s poll question ‘should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?’ as well as a similar vote to the Age’s poll question of whether to establish a committee to examine the facts of the incident, also serves to complement the contention of the two pieces and compel other readers into agreeing with the majority of the public. Videos are also presented in both pieces. The Herald Sun’s three videos depict actual footage taken by amateurs of the struggling refugees in the water – which points out that this incident is a result of the flawed policies, invoking a sense of sympathy from the readers, and spawn disapproval for the policies. In contrast, the video accompanying Oakeshott’s piece is an excerpt from a news report and gives a neutral perspective on the incident. This is in line with Oakeshott’s emotionally detached piece, giving the impression that his opinions are not clouded by emotions and thus may make the readers more inclined to accept his views.

Both articles are related to the Christmas Island tragedy, although the Herald Sun resides in calling for a change to the policies and invoking compassion and awareness of the issue in the readers through intricate use of tone, connotations and multimedia. Oakeshott’s piece also uses similar conventions, albeit a different intention – to find out the facts surrounding the tragedy.

[schmalex]

I didn't read the article, because I can't stand Andrew Bolt, and frankly I can't be bothered, but I'll assess your writing.

Okay, first off, you should never give any indication of what your opinion on the issue is. So don't say that the Gillard's policy is "flawed" unless you're saying something like "Bolt sees the policy as flawed." All you should be doing, is discussing the way Bolt writes. Also, the contentions don't need to be quite so specific. For Bolt's contention something like "the Gillard government's policies are somewhat responsible for deaths\causing deaths and should be reviewed" and for Oakeshott "greater transparency is needed regarding the Christmas Island tragedy, which he sees as being poorly handled by the government".

I wouldn't use two sentences to describe your target. Instead, when you're talking about the writers, write something liek "Andrew Bolt aims to convince Herald Sun readers that..." or "Rob Oakeshott wishes to make readers, particularly those in positions of power, feel that..." You don't need to specifically mention the target audience in the introduction, just make it obvious that you understand the context of the article.

"The writer of the Herald Sun dysphemistically describes the asylum seekers’ journey to Australia as ‘hazardous’ as they encounter ‘raging seas’ and hearing ‘the desperate cries of the asylum seekers cast into the sea’. "
rewrite this sentence. It doesn't really make sense grammatically. Also, this entire paragraph suggests that you argree with the writer, which, once again, you shouldn't be doing. Also, you're not telling the examiners what sort of emotions "may be invoked", but what sort of emotions the writer WANTS to evoke. Make sure you focus on the writer and what he wants people to feel.

"As a result, these suggestions such as  ‘[considering] Tony Abbott’s demand to turn back the boats’ and helping to solve the problem by ‘the reinstatement of temporary protection visas’ may be seen as logical and acceptable by the readers."
rewrite this sentence. I don't even know what you're saying.

"by the same token"
Avoid cliches. You're writing a formal essay, and your writing should be clear and concise.

Also, don't use the word "vibe". It's too informal. Use "tone".

The last sentence is somewhat obsolete. It doesn't really tell us much about what the writer is telling us to do, except that he wants to be taken seriously. Make sure all of your sentences have a purpose, and reveal something about the writer's intention.

"clump" is too informal.

And even the suggestion of readers being "confronted" by the "implications of the lack of action" sounds far too biased. The next sentence I don't really understand. Try to avoid trying to sound clever at this point, and put things as simply as you can, to make sure that you're being clear and you'll be easily understood. The sentence after needs proofreading.

I don't think that "online multimedia" 'substantiates' the arguments as such. Look up the word substantiate. I don't think it's appropriate. I don't know if 'integrating' is the right word either. It doesn't really feel right.

"points out that this incident is a result of the flawed policies, invoking a sense of sympathy from the readers, and spawn disapproval for the policies." given what I've already said, I think you should know why this isn't good to write.

"In contrast, the video accompanying Oakeshott’s piece is an excerpt from a news report and gives a neutral perspective on the incident. This is in line with Oakeshott’s emotionally detached piece, giving the impression that his opinions are not clouded by emotions and thus may make the readers more inclined to accept his views. "
This part of the essay is particularly well-written and perceptive. I probably haven't said enough nice things about this essay, which is actually quite a good attempt.

"resides" isn't really the right word in that sentence.

"
Both articles are related to the Christmas Island tragedy, although the Herald Sun resides in calling for a change to the policies and invoking compassion and awareness of the issue in the readers through intricate use of tone, connotations and multimedia."
Run on sentence.


Overall, your analysis is sound, but you seem to be trying to hard to sound sophisticated, at the expense of the clarity of your work. Make sure you know exactly how to use a word before you use it, and don't worry about making your essay sound interesting. Language analyses aren't supposed to be fun reads, they are supposed to clearly and carefully analyse language. Examiners would much prefer you write a piece using simple vocabulary that is clear and easily understood than a piece where the language isn't controlled, and what you're trying to say isn't completely clear.

[Ematuro]

I do think that your 2nd paragraph is a little brief as well - I think you should try and balance out the lengths in your body paragraphs a bit and go into a little more detail in your 2nd para.