[English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis

[adelaide.emily10]

Note from gossamer: The topic is locked because adelaide.emily10 has decided not to continue with the scheme. If she wishes to continue, or wants the topic deleted she can PM me, otherwise I'll leave this open to help other people

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

aim: 40+, hopefully 45

text response:
maestro
a christmas carol

context
whose reality - streetcar and the player (film)

__________________________________________________________________________________

** you will be required to provide internal hyperlinks to your essays on this post - see my thread to see what I mean **

January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Language Analysis edited
Week 4: Language analysis - this will need to be hyperlinked

[adelaide.emily10]

Language Analysis – Week 3

Due to the influx of illegal immigrants arriving on Australia's shores and the number of tragedies involving these 'boat people', the Herald Sun published an opinion piece written by Andrew Bolt titled 'Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard'. Bolt contends that the Labour government and its leader Julia Gillard are shifting the blame of these misfortunate events upon others such as the Navy and are not taking the responsibility for the party’s weak law-making policies. Throughout the piece, Bolt takes an accusatory tone against the Labour Government and inserts hints of sarcasm and cynicism. At times, Bolt also takes on an authoritative tone. Bolt aims his argument at everyday Australians who are interested in such political affairs and more specifically, the Australian voters who decide which political party is in power.

Bolt involves the reader in his opinion piece and questions their stance on the issue at hand. Rhetorical questions of ‘but why?’ and ‘when?’ are employed repetitively to engage the reader in discussion by directly addressing them and questioning their view on the issue.  Such questions also invite the reader to reassess their current viewpoint and see the logic and reason in the writer’s argument, thus lending credibility to Bolt’s argument. ‘We’ and ‘you and me’ are consistently applied to establish a personal connection with the reader and show the reader that the author is listening to their view. Inclusive language such as this creates an ‘us and them’ mentality, isolating the opposition to become a common foe for both the reader and writer.

The author appeals to the audience’s common moral to demonstrate that the Labour government is acting in a corrupt manner and not upholding basic ethical principals. Emotive language such as ‘lured’ and ‘killed’, are used throughout the opinion piece to evoke emotions of shock and disgust at the Government’s actions, and induce feelings of sympathy and grief for the victims of these boat crashes near Christmas Island. The application of emotive language in this piece sheds a negative and critical light on the Gillard Government’s argument and provoked readers in associating the Gillard government with loss of innocent lives. Bolt describes the actions of the Government as ‘criminally reckless’ and appeals to the reader’s sense of social justice and responsibility. The reader is positioned to feel anger at the injustice of risking the lives of the most vulnerable in society – children. The writer sarcastically expresses the ‘compassion’ of the ‘Left’ being the Gillard government, the tone utilizes implies the opposite of what has been said, the government is implicitly labelled by the author as indifferent and heatless.

The writer presents himself as a reliable and credible source to the reader. Bolt uses an authoritative voice at various times throughout the opinion piece, this conveys to the reader that the author is well informed of the facts of the issue and thus it can be easier for the reader to accept the writer’s contention of the Gillard government being an ineffective law making body.  Bolt incorporates statistics and figures such as ‘200 this year alone,’ referring to the number of boats arriving at Australia’s shoes.  Statistical evidence provides the pure facts to the reader and thus is one of the most credible forms of evidence, readers may feel that the writer’s argument is based around factual information rather than extremist views, thus increasing the credibility and reliability of the opinion piece.

The accompanying visual with this opinion piece depicts a small asylum seek boat being tossed around by the rough pacific sea waves. The boat’s exterior is very fragile and shows the immense risk that illegal immigrants take to arrive in Australia. The individuals are the smallest object in the photograph and this is compared to the fierce waves that crash into the frail boat, this emphasises the vulnerability of these ‘boat people’ and gains sympathy from the reader to see defenceless people in danger. The author’s contention is clearly stated as accompanying text layered over the photograph, both of these elements work together to present a clear view to the reader.

Overall Bolt presents a very one-sided argument, but supports his contention with various figures and statistical evidence.  He focuses on gaining sympathy from the reader and continuously questions their stance on the issue. Bolt evokes feelings of shock, dismay and disgust through the opinion piece.

p.s i've never really been good at english

[brightsky]

Due to the influx of illegal immigrants arriving on Australia's shores and the number of tragedies involving these 'boat people', the Herald Sun published an opinion piece written by Andrew Bolt titled 'Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard'.This wording sounds a bit awks to me. Bolt contends that the Labour government and its leader Julia Gillard are shifting the blame of these misfortunate events upon others such as the Navy and are not taking the responsibility for the party’s weak law-making policies. Throughout the piece, Bolt takes an accusatory tone against the Labour Government and inserts hints of sarcasm and cynicism.Try not to just throw these around. At times, Bolt also takes on an authoritative tone. Again, it just seems as though you're throwing this around for the sake of it.Bolt aims his argument at everyday Australians who are interested in such political affairs Not really.and more specifically, the Australian voters who decide which political party is in power.Unnecessarily wordy here.

Bolt involves involves?the reader in his opinion piece and questions their stance on the issue at handHe does?. Rhetorical questions ofWrong word. Try "such as" ‘but why?’ and ‘when?’ are employed repetitively to engage the reader in discussion This phrase doesn't support your analysis at all. Avoid.by directly addressing them and questioning their view on the issue. I fail to see the objective of this line. Such questions also invite the reader to reassess their current viewpoint and see the logic and reason in the writer’s argument, thus lending credibility to Bolt’s argument. Shallow analysis; you fail to really explain the intended effect of the rhetorical questions.‘We’ and ‘you and me’ are consistently applied to establish a personal connection with the reader and show the reader that the author is listening to their view. This line is good, but the author isn't "listening to their view" per se.Inclusive language such as this creates an ‘us and them’ mentality, isolating the opposition to become a common foe for both the reader and writer.Ok, now I get a feel as though you're listing. You must do justice to a specific technique the author employs and really explore how it is intended to position the audience.

The author appeals to the audience’s common moral to demonstrate that the Labour government is acting in a corrupt manner and not upholding basic ethical principals. You need to explain HOW the author's writing appeals to the audience's sense of conscience.Emotive language such as ‘lured’ and ‘killed’, are used throughout the opinion piece to evoke emotions of shock and disgust at the Government’s actions, and induce feelings of sympathy and grief for the victims of these boat crashes near Christmas Island. Good, now extend.The application of emotive language in this piece sheds a negative and critical light on the Gillard Government’s argument and provoked readers in associating the Gillard government with loss of innocent lives. This is ok.Bolt describes the actions of the Government as ‘criminally reckless’ and appeals to the reader’s sense of social justice and responsibility. The reader is positioned to feel anger at the injustice of risking the lives of the most vulnerable in society – children. The writer sarcastically expresses the ‘compassion’ of the ‘Left’ being the Gillard government, the tone utilizes implies the opposite of what has been said, the government is implicitly labelled by the author as indifferent and heatless.I still get the feel as though you're listing, but this paragraph is a tad better than the previous one.

The writer presents himself as a reliable and credible source to the reader. Excellent.Bolt uses an authoritative I roughly read the article a few days ago, so IIRC I don't think it's really authoratative in tone, though I might be wrong.voice at various times throughout the opinion piece, this conveys to the reader that the author is well informed of the facts of the issue and thus it can be easier for the reader to accept the writer’s contention of the Gillard government being an ineffective law making body. Bolt incorporates statistics and figures such as ‘200 this year alone,’ referring to the number of boats arriving at Australia’s shoes.  Statistical evidence provides the pure facts to the reader and thus is one of the most credible forms of evidenceIcky., readers may feel 'May' is weak. Try 'are positioned to feel' or something.that the writer’s argument is based around factual information rather than extremist views, thus increasing the credibility and reliability of the opinion piece.Again, you fail to really link the ideas together and explain WHY statistical evidence would make readers think that he is more credible.

The accompanying visual with this opinion piece depicts a small asylum seek boat being tossed around Colloquial.by the rough pacific sea waves. The boat’s exterior is very fragile and shows the immense risk that illegal immigrants take to arrive in Australia. The individuals are the smallest object in the photograph and this is compared to the fierce waves that crash into the frail boat, this emphasises the vulnerability of these ‘boat people’ and gains sympathy from the reader to see defenceless people in danger. A very good point, but badly put together.The author’s contention is clearly stated as accompanying text layered over the photographThis doesn't really make sense., both of these elements work together to present a clear view to the reader.

Overall Cliched. Avoid.Bolt presents a very one-sided argument, but supports his contention with various figures and statistical evidence.  He focuses on gaining sympathy from the reader and continuously questions their stance on the issue. Bolt evokes feelings of shock, dismay and disgust through the opinion piece.This conclusion is ok.

The ideas are there but sometimes the way you convey it can seem a little confusing. Also, I felt that for the most part the analysis was a bit shallow; you fail to really get into how a specific technique affects the reader and how it positions the reader to feel a certain way, and why. This is probably why I get a feel as though you're listing. Spend a little more time delving into specific techniques, and really explain them in detail. Your quoting is fine. I'd say around 6/10 for the time being.

[pi]

From what brightsky has pointed out, here is more:
- Avoid these:

Statistical evidence provides the pure facts to the reader and thus is one of the most credible forms of evidence...

...as they are very generic and don't provide any specific details whatsoever

- Your first sentence should be reworded:

Due to the influx of illegal immigrants arriving on Australia's shores and the number of tragedies involving these 'boat people', the Herald Sun published an opinion piece written by Andrew Bolt titled 'Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard'.

should become

Andrew Bolt's (author) opinion piece (what it is) titled 'Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard' (title) published in the Herald Sun (where) was written due to the influx of illegal immigrants arriving on Australia's shores and the number of tragedies involving these 'boat people' (context).

Its still a bit weak, but it sounds a lot better (a general formula is bracketed in the revision)

- Focus more on the 'how?' rather than labeling various techniques

- This:

The author’s contention is clearly stated as accompanying text layered over the photograph

...felt out of place and read as if it were artificially added just for the sake of it

- When mentioning a target audience, try to more concise:

Bolt aims his argument at everyday Australians who are interested in such political affairs and more specifically, the Australian voters who decide which political party is in power

...notice how the part in red could be summarised as 'Australian voters'?

My mark would be 5/10. There are still a few of the basics that really need to be mastered. Especially just keeping things concise and to-the-point. A good start to the year though (I particularly loved 'The individuals are the smallest object in the photograph and this is compared to the fierce waves that crash into the frail boat, this emphasises the vulnerability of these ‘boat people’ and gains sympathy from the reader to see defenceless people in danger.' <-- brilliant pick-up!).

[adelaide.emily10]

thanks for the feedback brightsky and rohitpi - I've edited my language analysis in line with your constructive critisism

After the recent Christmas Island tragedy, the Herald Sun published an opinion piece written by Andrew Bolt titled 'Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard'. Bolt contends that the Labour government and its leader Julia Gillard are shifting the blame of these misfortunate events upon others such as the Navy and are not taking the responsibility for the party’s weak law-making policies. Throughout the piece, Bolt takes an accusatory tone against the Labour Government and at times takes a much more sarcastic tone when criticising the Government’s lack of responsibility. At times, Bolt also takes on an authoritative tone. Bolt aims his argument at the Australian voters, he questions whether or not they should vote for Julia Gillard in the next election.

Bolt invites the reader to be involved in the discussion of this issue. Rhetorical questions such ‘but why?’ and ‘when?’ are employed repetitively to continuously question the reader’s stance on the issue.  This requestioning allows the reader to compare their own stance to the writer’s view and see the merits of his argument.  Such questions also invite the reader to reassess their current viewpoint and see the logic and reason in the writer’s argument, the reader feels more inclined to take aboard the author’s argument because they see it as a much more understandable argument that follows common intuition. ‘We’ and ‘you and me’ are consistently applied to establish a personal connection with the reader and show the reader that the author is willing to take aboard the reader’s view as well. Inclusive language such as this creates an ‘us and them’ mentality, isolating the opposition to become a common foe for both the reader and writer. This common goal that both the author and reader work towards positions the reader to feel that the author is on their side and in a way feel that the writer is supporting the contention of the reader, an almost team building form of support.

The author appeals to the audience’s common moral to demonstrate that the Labour government is acting in a corrupt manner and not upholding basic ethical principals. This is conveyed through emotive language such as ‘lured’ and ‘killed’, they are used throughout the opinion piece to evoke emotions of shock and disgust at the Government’s actions, and induce feelings of sympathy and grief for the victims of these boat crashes near Christmas Island. ‘God rest them – children’ appeals to the reader’s instinct to protect the most vulnerable in society and feel revolted the Government is purposely putting young lives at risk.  The application of emotive language in this piece sheds a negative and critical light on the Gillard Government’s argument and provokes readers in associating the Gillard government with the loss of innocent lives and additionally the Government is not willing to take responsibility for their actions. Bolt describes the actions of the Government as ‘criminally reckless’ and appeals to the reader’s sense of social justice and responsibility. The author draws a link between the government’s actions and criminal behaviour, this positions the reader to feel appalled that the Government can so easily get away with behaviour that would normally be dealt with seriously if it were committed by regular Australians.  The writer sarcastically expresses the ‘compassion’ of the ‘Left’ being the Gillard government, the tone implies the opposite of what has been said; the government is implicitly labelled by the author as indifferent and heatless.

The writer presents himself as a reliable and credible source to the reader. Bolt uses an authoritative voice when delivering statistical evidence, this conveys to the reader that the author is well informed of the facts of the issue and thus it can be easier for the reader to accept the writer’s contention of the Gillard government being an ineffective law making body. Bolt incorporates statistics and figures such as ‘200 this year alone,’ referring to the number of boats arriving at Australia’s shoes. The audience is positioned to feel that the writer’s argument is credible because it is based around factual information rather than extremist views, thus increasing the credibility and reliability of the opinion piece. 

The accompanying visual with this opinion piece depicts a small asylum seeker boat being submerged by the rough pacific sea waves. The boat’s exterior is very fragile and illustrates the immense risk that illegal immigrants take to arrive in Australia. The photograph establishes a hierarchy where the individuals in the boat are the smallest and appear insignificant, and the rolling waves are portrayed as being very powerful. This hierarchy places emphasises on the vulnerability of these ‘boat people’ and positions the reader to feel sympathy for the victims of Julia Gillard’s weak law-making policies. The inside of the boat appears to be very cramped and dirty, the reader is positioned to feel outraged that any human being should be persuaded to travel such long journeys under such repulsive conditions .

In general Bolt presents a very one-sided argument, but supports his contention with various figures and statistical evidence.  He focuses on gaining sympathy from the reader and demonstrates to the reader that his argument is not only the most logical, but also the most supported by evidence. Bolt evokes feelings of shock, dismay and disgust through the opinion piece.

[werdna]

I'm going to make an impartial critique and will not read any of the comments made by brightsky or Rohitpi in regards to the first draft. I'll mark the good copy accordingly to how I see it now, without having read the first copy. Then you can compare the comments with one another.

After the recent Christmas Island tragedy Explain this a little more. What was the tragedy? Don't go overboard with the contextualisation though. , the Herald Sun published an opinion piece written by Andrew Bolt titled 'Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard'. Bolt contends that the Labour government and its leader Julia Gillard are shifting the blame of these misfortunate events upon others Wrong word to use. such as the Navy and are not taking the responsibility for the party’s weak law-making policies What do you mean by this? It's slightly confusing to read, because political parties don't get to choose the policies by which they create legislation. . Throughout the piece, Bolt takes uses an accusatory tone against the Labour Government and at times takes a much more sarcastic tone when criticising the Government’s lack of responsibility. At times, Bolt also takes on an authoritative tone. This sounds like a continuous listing of tone, and more tone, and more tone.. Be more concise. Bolt aims his argument at the Australian voters, he questions whether or not they should vote for Julia Gillard in the next election. Poor expression.

Bolt invites the reader to be involved in the discussion of this issue. Generic. Rhetorical questions such ‘but why?’ and ‘when?’ Be more specific with these examples. Every essay on this subforum has made the exact same problem. What are the questions referring to? are employed repetitively to continuously question the reader’s stance on the issue.  This requestioning allows the reader to compare their own stance to the writer’s view and see the merits of his argument.  Such questions also invite the reader to reassess their current viewpoint and see the logic and reason in the writer’s argument, the reader feels more inclined to take aboard the author’s argument because they see it as a much more understandable argument that follows common intuition. ‘We’ and ‘you and me’ are consistently applied to establish a personal connection with the reader and show the reader that the author is willing to take aboard the reader’s view as well Not necessarily. Bolt wants readers to agree with him. His rather accusatory and powerful tone is testament to this - the last thing he'd do, in my opinion, is agree with the reader. And why would he? What if the reader thought the total opposite to what he was arguing? . Inclusive language such as this creates an ‘us and them’ mentality, isolating the opposition to become a common foe for both the reader and writer. This common goal that both the author and reader work towards positions the reader to feel that the author is on their side and in a way feel that the writer is supporting the contention of the reader, an almost team building form of support.

The author appeals to the audience’s common moral to demonstrate that the Labour government is acting in a corrupt manner and not upholding basic ethical principals. This is conveyed through emotive language such as ‘lured’ and ‘killed’ Again, be more specific. What is being lured? What is being killed? You need to state the facts, because otherwise, your analysis of the intended effect will suffer the same fate and won't be specific either. , they are used throughout the opinion piece to evoke emotions of shock and disgust at the Government’s actions, and induce feelings of sympathy and grief for the victims of these boat crashes near Christmas Island This is excellent. . ‘God rest them – children’ appeals to the reader’s instinct to protect the most vulnerable in society and feel revolted the Government is purposely putting young lives at risk.  The application Wrong word to use. of emotive language in this piece sheds a negative and critical light on the Gillard Government’s argument and provokes readers in associating to associate the Gillard government with the loss of innocent lives and additionally the Government is not willing to take responsibility for their actions. Bolt describes the actions of the Government as ‘criminally reckless’ and appeals to the reader’s sense of social justice and responsibility. The author draws a link between the government’s actions and criminal behaviour, this positions the reader to feel appalled that the Government can so easily get away with behaviour that would normally be dealt with seriously if it were committed by regular Australians.  The writer sarcastically expresses the ‘compassion’ of the ‘Left’ being the Gillard government, the tone implies the opposite of what has been said; the government is implicitly labelled by the author as indifferent and heatless. Excellent stuff.

The writer It's okay to say 'the writer' instead of the surname of the writer sometimes, but I think here, it'd be better if you wrote 'Bolt'. presents himself as a reliable and credible source to the reader. Bolt uses an authoritative voice when delivering statistical evidence, this conveys to the reader that the author is well informed of the facts of the issue and thus it can be easier for the reader to accept the writer’s contention of the Gillard government being an ineffective law making body. Bolt incorporates statistics and figures such as ‘200 this year alone,’ referring to the number of boats arriving at Australia’s shoes Good that you're being more specific here. . The audience is positioned to feel that the writer’s argument is credible because it is based around factual information rather than extremist views, thus increasing the credibility and reliability of the opinion piece. 

The accompanying visual with this opinion piece depicts a small asylum seeker boat being submerged by the rough pacific sea waves. The boat’s exterior is very fragile and illustrates the immense risk that illegal immigrants take to arrive in Australia. The photograph establishes a hierarchy where the individuals in the boat are the smallest and appear insignificant, and the rolling waves are portrayed as being very powerful. This hierarchy places emphasis on the vulnerability of these ‘boat people’ and positions the reader to feel sympathy for the victims of Julia Gillard’s weak law-making policies. The inside of the boat appears to be very cramped and dirty, the reader is positioned to feel outraged that any human being should would be persuaded to travel such long journeys under such repulsive conditions. You've delved into the visual itself, but haven't really emphasised the intended effect.

In general Bolt presents a very one-sided argument Slightly on the verge of evaluation. , but supports his contention with various figures and statistical evidence.  He focuses on gaining sympathy from the reader and demonstrates to the reader that his argument is not only the most logical, but also the most supported by evidence. Bolt evokes feelings of shock, dismay and disgust through the opinion piece.

This is a very good essay. Some parts were shaky, but generally speaking, it's definitely a good effort. In some areas, I noticed some excellent analytical skills. I can see you going very far if you continue writing essays on a consistent basis and keep a positive mindset whilst taking in criticism. You've definitely shown that here, as I think you're the only one who had enough confidence to write up a good copy when it wasn't even specified you had to. Well done!

I'll now go through your first draft and the 2 comments made by the others.

Final score: 7 - 7.5/10.