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

[man0005]

Texts: Island, Year of Wonders
Context: Imaginative Landscape
SS Aim: 40+

[man0005]

January Week 4 Language Analysis -
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/gillard-government-asylum-policy-now-all-at-sea/story-e6frfhqo-1225971829794

The latest headline to make the news concerning the much flawed asylum seeker policy put into place by the Gillard Government's are the deaths of 27 men, women and children attempting to make their way across the raging seas of Christmas Island. The Herald Sun editorial, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea” aims to address the issues of this system in the hope that some action is taken in order to prevent this from happening again. It contends in a pleading and compassionate tone that in light of recent events, some changes in order to prevent more death and pain.

From the onset of the article, the reader is made aware of the deficiencies of asylum police that is currently in place. The bold opening statement using evidence of the “confirmed deaths of 27 men, women and children” erases any doubts in the readers mind that the severity of the issue is being overplayed. Not only that, but in giving an exact number of the number of deaths, the Herald Sun forms a basis for the rest of their article and gives their own argument credibility.  Furthermore the use of emotive language to describe the “raging seas” gives the readers a real idea of danger in continuing to allow this travesty to continue. It puts them in the firing line; how would they feel if they or one of their loved ones were in the same position as these asylum seekers.

Having made the readers well aware of the perilous journey that awaits those who seek asylum, the Herald Sun then appeals to their sense of empathy. The vivid mentioning of their “desperate cries” of and how the sea “threw them against the cliffs of the island” captures the reader’s attention and makes them aware of the pain that could be avoided if this policy is changed. Equally effective as the previous statistics in the first few paragraphs, is the lack of hard evidence as shown by the broad mention of the “drownings of the asylum seekers trying to reach Christmas Island on leaky boats used by people smugglers”. There is no certain figure of how many perished, however after already reading so much about how dangerous this activity is, the readers are more inclined to think the worst and it raises doubts in their own minds. By now they would all want to know exactly how many more people would have to die before action is taken.

Having made the Gillard Government the villain in some sense, the Herald Sun attempts to give the reader some ideas of a solution to fix this dire situation. In doing so, it makes itself much more effective than a simple hate piece on the Government and its policies.  Suggestions such as “the reinstatement of temporary protection visas”, removing the pull" factor of quick resettlement in Australia and the “consideration of Tony Abbott's demand to turn back the boats” reinforce that this problem is not as complex as the Government makes it to be. Using a logical and well thought tone the Herald Sun aims to simplify the problem, further tarnishing the reputation of Julia Gillard and her policies.  The poll “Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?” makes the solution even more straightforward. It almost makes the issue, a topic that has concerned our countries for many months” as simply as a yes or no question.
 
There is almost an underlying patronizing tone throughout this article. As credibility in their own argument increases, that of the government decreases. The Herald Sun uses repetition to emphasize the importance of compassion in this case. In doing so, it makes the Gillard Government, a cold, emotionless medium that does not care for general public and the readers. The article appeals to a sense of equality and justice. Don’t these refugees deserve to be able to start their own lives in Australia, just as we have? Even simpler, don’t they deserve a chance of actually have a live; why are we tempting them to risk their lives trying to reach our shores? The most recent “tragedy raises further questions” as to the very intentions of the Government. The solution is there, as reiterated by the Herald Sun. In fact there is more than one option.  “The Labor Government, for all its condemnation of temporary protection visas and turning back the boats, must accept a greater degree of responsibility when the boats get this far.” How are we able to call ourselves human if we are not willing to give others “a fair go”? For is that not the very motto that we as Australians base our lives on?  The stilled image of the video at the very of the top of the article depicts a group of people attempting to help those under water. There is almost a subtle appeal to a sense of patriotism in both this image and the article. Will we “extend our arms” to help those in need?

The effectiveness of the Gillard Government asylum policy will continue to be debated in the months to come. However the Herald Sun shows us that as difficulty as the situation may appear to look, the solution is in fact much simpler. The article effectively uses a range of appeals from the very obvious sense of equality and justice to much subtler sense of patriotism. Furthermore it uses emotive, vivid language, repetition, imagery, polls and statistics to reinforce that what is currently going on is beyond wrong. The Government can defend their system as much as they want however in the end their actions are as cold and emotionless as the stoic face of their leader. It is almost shocking to know that this policy, even while “all at sea” will more than likely continue to be in place while the Labour Government is in power. Who knows how many times “the death toll will have to be updated” from now until then.


Edit: Sorry guys, this is my first time and I didnt know this I was supposed to do a multi text analysis. If you could mark it as a single one it would be great

[schmalex]

Like I said to Christiano, the person reading your piece should finish with NO IDEA what your opinion on the issue is. Your opening sounds like an opinion piece, not a language analysis. Your background of the issue should relate to what the media have been saying about it, not your own opinion. Also, details are unneccesary, all you need to tell readers is enough to understand the context of the article.

"It contends in a pleading and compassionate tone that in light of recent events, some changes in order to prevent more death and pain."

This is an incomplete sentence. Also "prevent more death and pain" is bordering on sensationalist. Remember, you're not writing a newspaper article yourself, but writing a formal analysis. Something like "The writer pleads that politicians take further action to prevent a repeat incident of the disaster," would be more appropriate.

"the reader is made aware of the deficiencies of asylum police that is currently in place."
You're not trying to convince readers that the writer is correct, you're trying to convince them that you understand the way that language is used. Your piece reads like you trying to convince readers that the writer is right, when you should be analysing the ways that the writer convinces audiences that he\she is right.

"erases any doubts in the readers mind that the severity of the issue is being overplayed."
You can't presume that this occurs. You can say that the writer AIMS to "erase all doubts in the readers mind that the severity of the issue is overplayed" but you can't say that this definitely occurs. Also, once again, your writing isn't particularly formal. "Erase any doubts in the readers mind" is unneccesary. "Firmly persuade readers" is more appropriate. Just say exactly what you want to say with little embellishment. "Not only that" is also unneccesary. Once again, it sounds like you are trying to emotively convince people that the writer is correct, which is besides the point of the essay.

"continuing to allow this travesty to continue" is also highly inappropriate, for reasons listed above.

It puts them in the firing line; how would they feel if they or one of their loved ones were in the same position as these asylum seekers.

This is a reasonably point, but it's written in a way that won't get you marks. You should write it in a more formal way:

"The intended effect is to shock readers and make them sympathise with the victims, possibly contemplating how they would feel if they or their loved ones were in the same position. "

"the perilous journey that awaits those who seek asylum" also inappropriate. "The dangers faced by asylum seekers"

"Equally effective as the previous statistics in the first few paragraphs, is the lack of hard evidence as shown by the broad mention of the “drownings of the asylum seekers trying to reach Christmas Island on leaky boats used by people smugglers”. There is no certain figure of how many perished, however after already reading so much about how dangerous this activity is, the readers are more inclined to think the worst and it raises doubts in their own minds. By now they would all want to know exactly how many more people would have to die before action is taken."

This needs to be written more clearly and formally. Step back and think of exactly what the writer is trying to say, and how, and write that as simply as possible.

"In doing so, it makes itself much more effective than a simple hate piece on the Government and its policies" You're not writing an evaluation of the piece. The reader also shouldn't be aware of whether you like the piece or not. "well thought out" is definitely not appropriate for this reason.

"a topic that has concerned our countries for many months" not really neccesary. "It simplifies the complex issue by making it a yes\no question" will do.

"As credibility in their own argument increases, that of the government decreases" This is kind of stating the obvious, given that the piece is attacking the government. Try something like "The piece aims to attack the credibility of the Gillard Government, while increasing its own credibility", but you either need to link that to a specific example, or put it in your intro on conclusion. It's a bit out of place in the opening of a paragraph.

"Don’t these refugees deserve to be able to start their own lives in Australia, just as we have? Even simpler, don’t they deserve a chance of actually have a live; why are we tempting them to risk their lives trying to reach our shores? The most recent “tragedy raises further questions” as to the very intentions of the Government. The solution is there, as reiterated by the Herald Sun. In fact there is more than one option.  “The Labor Government, for all its condemnation of temporary protection visas and turning back the boats, must accept a greater degree of responsibility when the boats get this far.” How are we able to call ourselves human if we are not willing to give others “a fair go”? For is that not the very motto that we as Australians base our lives on?  The stilled image of the video at the very of the top of the article depicts a group of people attempting to help those under water. There is almost a subtle appeal to a sense of patriotism in both this image and the article. Will we “extend our arms” to help those in need?"

This is pretty much a summary of the article. You will get very very few marks for writing like this. All you've done is write your own opinion, without really analysing language.

"The effectiveness of the Gillard Government asylum policy will continue to be debated in the months to come. "
Completely irrelevent.


Okay basically, focus on the question you're actually being asked: "How is written and visual language being used to persuade." It's a language analysis, not an argument analysis. Try to really focus on how certain words of phrases are INTENDED to make people feel, and what the specfic techniques of the writer are. Listing persuasive techniques and telling people that the writer is right won't get you many marks.

[DNAngel]

The latest headline to make the news'make the news' is a little too colloquial. Replace with something like, The latest headline to appear in the news that concerns... concerning the much Unnecessary.  flawed asylum seeker policy putA better word could be used here, such as, 'positioned' or 'situated' into place by the Gillard Government's are the deaths of 27 men, women and children attempting to make their way across the raging seas of Christmas Island.Good use of evidence. The Herald Sun editorial, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea” aims to address the issues of this system in the hopeto ensure that some action is taken in order to prevent this from happeningWord choice? again. It contends in a pleading and compassionate tone that in light of recent events, some changes in order to prevent more death and pain.Not sure what you're trying to say in the last sentence. Also, you must mention the audience in which the article is targeted.

From the onset of the article, the reader is made aware of the deficiencies of asylum police that is currently in place.What deficiencies? List some examples from the text. The bold opening statement using evidence of the “confirmed deaths of 27 men, women and children” erases any doubtsAvoid forcing your opinion onto the reader in the readersreader's mind that the severity of the issue isis exaggerated. being overplayed. Not only that,Additionally, but in giving an exact number of the number of deaths, the Herald SunThe author does this, not the newspaper! forms a basisupon which the article and build upon and provides credibility to his/her credibility for the rest of their article and gives theirhis/her own argument credibility.  Furthermorea comma is needed here the use of emotive language to describe the “raging seas” gives the readers a real ideasense of danger of danger in continuing to allow this travestythis travesty is not referred to previously in this sentence to continue.Avoid writing in the passive voice. An active voice gives more authority to your writing but also generates more interest It putsPoor word choice here them in the firing line; how would they feel if they or one of their loved ones were in the same position as these asylum seekersReword. Your language analysis piece must not contain your thoughts on the issue, only what techniques are used and how are they persuasive..

Having made the readers well aware of the perilous journeyAgain. Avoid voicing your opinion. that awaits those who seek asylum, the Herald Sun then appeals to their sense of empathy. The vivid mentioning of their “desperate cries” of and how the sea “threw them against the cliffs of the island” captures the reader’s attentionUnnecessary. The whole article is aimed at capturing the reader's attention. and makes them aware of the painagony that could be avoided if this policy is changed. Equally effective as the previous statistics in the first few paragraphsAwkward phrasing here. What statistics are you referring to?. , is the lack of hard evidence as shown by mentioning the broad mention of the “drownings of the asylum seekers trying to reach Christmas Island on leaky boats used by people smugglers”. There is no certain figure of how many perished, however after already reading so muchAgain, do not add your opinion. about how dangerous this activity is, the readers are more inclined to think the worstBetter words could be used here. and it raises doubts in their own mindsWhat doubts?. By now they would all want to know exactly how many more people would have to die before action is taken.Nothing is for certain. Try not to impose something onto the reader. Everyone has their own unique beliefs, ideals... etc

Having madeRepetition the Gillard Government the villain in some senseYou need to be more specific., the Herald Sun attempts to giveprovide the reader some ideas of a solution to fix this dire situationWeak expression. In doing so, it makes itself much more effective than a simple hate piece on the Government and its policies.Reword.  Suggestions such as “the reinstatement of temporary protection visas”, removing the pull" factor of quick resettlement in Australia and the “consideration of Tony Abbott's demand to turn back the boats” reinforce that this problem is not as complex as the Government makes it to betoo colloquial here. It needs to be more formal. Using a logical and well thought tone the Herald Sun aims to simplify the problem,Explain further. further tarnishing the reputation of Julia Gillard and her policies.  The poll “Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?” makes the solution even more straightforwardHow so?. It almost makesexemplifies that the issue is no more than a 'yes or no' question. the issue, a topic that has concerned our countries for many months” as simply as a yes or no question.
 
There is almostAvoid 'almost'. You seem to be unsure of what the author is intending to do. an underlying patronizing tone throughout this article.Some examples would be nice As credibility in their own argument increases, that of the government decreases. The Herald Sun uses repetition to emphasize the importance of compassion in this case. In doing soVary your sentence openers., it makes the Gillard Government, a cold, emotionless medium thatof which does not care for general publicSpecify the general public and theits readers. The article appeals to a sense of equality and justiceNot enough depth.. Don’t these refugees deserve to be able to start their own lives in Australia, just as we have? Even simpler, don’t they deserve a chance of actually have a live; why are we tempting them to risk their lives trying to reach our shores?Do not raise questions based on your own beliefs. This is not an opinion piece. The most recent “tragedy raises further questions” as to the very intentions of the Government. The solution is there, as reiterated by the Herald Sun. In fact there is more than one option.  “The Labor Government, for all its condemnation of temporary protection visas and turning back the boats, must accept a greater degree of responsibility when the boats get this far.” How are we able to call ourselves human if we are not willing to give others “a fair go”? For is that not the very motto that we as Australians base our lives on?  The stilled image of the video at the very of the top of the article depicts a group of people attempting to help those under water.Link these two sentences. There is almost a subtle appeal to a sense of patriotism in both this image and the article. Will we “extend our arms” to help those in need?Unnecessary

The effectiveness of the Gillard Government asylum policy will continue to be debated in the months to comeAre you sure?. Howevercomma the Herald Sun shows us that as difficultydifficult as the situation may appear to look, the solution is in fact much simpler.Expand on this. The article effectively uses a range of appeals from the very obviousDo not patronize the reader. Not everyone thinks alike! sense of equality and justice to a much subtler sense of patriotismYou've used sense twice here. Avoid using the same word in the within a sentence.. Furthermorecomma it uses emotive, vivid language, repetition, imagery, polls and statistics to reinforce that what is currently going onAvoid slang. 'going on' is far too casual. Replace with something such as, occurring. is beyond wrongUnnecessary.. The Government can defend their system as much as they wantYou sound prejudiced here. however in the end their actions are as cold and emotionless as the stoic face of their leader. It is almost shocking to know that this policy, even while “all at sea” will more than likely continue to be in place while the LabourIt's actually Labor. Weird huh? Government is in power. Who knows how many times “the death toll will have to be updated” from now until then.Again. Questions must be not be sourced from your own opinion, it is from the article.

Overall, your writing needs a lot of fine-tuning to be frank. Throughout the article, you have used language that is otherwise a big 'no-no' unless this is used orally. The examiner is looking for formal language that fully explains the language devices used, and how they affect the reader. Also, I've noticed that you seem to voice your opinion a lot during this piece. At some times, you are forcing the reader to comply with your reasoning and have made them feel somewhat foolish. For example, 'very obvious' is extremely patronizing to the reader. This is also a big no-no. Finally, more depth is needed when identifying persuasive techniques; in other words, you seem to list techniques and then straight away move on to the next one.

I would award this essay a mark of 5, 6 at best, out of 10.

Don't be discouraged. I'm sure that through practice you will certainly improve.   

[man0005]

Thanks heaps for the feedback guys, definitely gonna have to write a lot more la essays before the exam
Just a quick question regarding the structure of the language analysis
Would it be sufficient just to list one persuasive technique and talk about in depth for each body paragraph. And how many body paragraphs should I write?

[m@tty]

What I did was structure my analysis on the main points that the writer was making chronologically and put 2-4 separate persuasive element in there. Bear in mind that I did only get an 8 for this section on the exam.. so other ways could be more effective. But that's what I did.

[schmalex]

Thanks heaps for the feedback guys, definitely gonna have to write a lot more la essays before the exam
Just a quick question regarding the structure of the language analysis
Would it be sufficient just to list one persuasive technique and talk about in depth for each body paragraph. And how many body paragraphs should I write?

This would be sufficient. But don't look through the article for persuasive techniques that you can write a paragraph about. Just think about what you think you'd like to write about then try to put it into paragraphs. They can vary in length, and they can mention many persuasive techniques, or contain no metalanguage. However, if you feel like you need a strict structure, then one paragraph per technique can definitely work. (I'm sorry if that sounded contradictory. To be honest, I didn't write many analyses on just the one article.)