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

[vea]

I had a problem with quoting in paragraph 4, I wanted to quote something that was already in quotation marks as long as one word after it... if someone could help that would be awesome. It is bolded.   

The editorial in the Herald Sun, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea” (16/12/2010) and the opinion article “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” by Rob Oakeshott (The Age 17/12/2010) both highlight the controversies surrounding the Labor government’s asylum seeker policies. The two articles both contend that the Labor government must act quickly. Given their sources of publication, the articles are targeted towards the general public, particularly those who have an interest in the issue of asylum seekers.

  Both writers embrace an urgent yet rational tone to display their concern and to position readers to realize the urgency and seriousness of the issue. The headline “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea” is a pun that illustrates how lost and worthless the Labor government’s policies are and reminds readers of the terrors of the recent asylum seeker boat incident.  In effect, readers are invited to re-evaluate the Labor government and their asylum seeker policies and their actions. Similarly, readers are likely to want the Labor government to change their course of actions when they read the title “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy”.

  The editorial commences by attempting to shock readers when the editor declares the deaths of “27 men, women and children…” They back this up with more statistics of the incident in order to stress that this event is real and that it is severe. The anaphora of “Compassion for…immigration requirements” and “Real compassion…reach our shores” is used to emphasise the mistake that the Labor government made by softening immigration laws. This may reveal to readers the excuses that the Labor government makes instead of admitting wrongdoing to the public. In turn, readers may oppose them for being dishonest. In attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstring of readers, the editor describes recent events as an “unfolding tragedy” and a “tragic” problem- words which connote suffering and misery. In doing so, the writer attempts to suggest that the migrants require assistance and that it is essential that the government intervenes.

  Similarly, Oakeshott begins his article by informing readers of the ““Christmas Island incident” committee””. He does so to suggest to readers that Julia Gillard is avoiding the issue at hand and that the committee is an excuse, something that “I, nor anyone outside Julia Gillard or key ministers, can value add”. In the same way that the editorial appeals to readers’ sympathy, Oakeshott uses connotations to paint a picture of chaos. By describing the “wildfire rumour mill” as having “exploded” across Australia- a word that depicts widespread danger- he attempts to harbor fear from readers. Consequently, readers are challenged to consider the damage that this rumour may continue to bring if the truth is not brought to public quickly. This is further reinforced when Oakeshott adds that these rumours may cause “hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy”- words that paint a picture of chaos.

  Due to the articles being published on the internet, there are videos, pictures, polls and comments accompanying them. The videos and pictures are utilised to emphasise the chaos and misery that caused by the recent boat incident. In addition, the polls titled “Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers in order to prevent further tragedies” and “Do you think establishing a multi-party committee to examine the facts of the Christmas Island boat tragedy is a good idea?” has a majority of readers voting “No”. This, along with the comments posted by readers mainly agreeing with the articles, is highly likely to appeal to readers’ sense of “being part of the crowd”, which may cause a sway in their stance.

  The crux of the editorial resides in its use of statistics complementing his intentions of invoking sympathy in readers. In a similar manner, Oakeshott invokes the specters of chaos and danger in readers. Such emotions are then further compounded upon by accompanying multimedia. It is through such an intricate composition that the writers intend to raise awareness over the issue of asylum seekers.

(667 words)

[luken93]

The editorial in the Herald Sun, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea” (16/12/2010) and the opinion article “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” by Rob Oakeshott (The Age 17/12/2010) both highlight the controversies surrounding the Labor government’s asylum seeker policies. The two articles both contend that the Labor government must act quickly Not much depth at all for a contention, it should be longer as you are somewhat basing your analysis on it. Given their sources of publication, the articles are targeted towards the general public, particularly those who have an interest in the issue of asylum seekers. Maybe a bit too generic, interest in asylum seekers - how/why?

  Both writers embrace an urgent yet rational tone to display their concern and to position readers to realize Realise - we are Aussie the urgency and seriousness of the issue. The headline “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea” is a pun that illustrates how lost and worthless the Labor government’s policies are and reminds readers of the terrors of the recent asylum seeker boat incident.  In effect, readers are invited to re-evaluate the Labor government and their asylum seeker policies and their actions. Similarly, readers are likely to want the Labor government to change their course of actions when they read the title “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy”.

  The editorial commences by attempting to shock readers when the editor declares the deaths of “27 men, women and children…” They back this up Maybe something along the lines of "This is further supported by...with more statistics of the incident in order to stress that this event is real and that it is severe. The anaphora of “Compassion for…immigration requirements” and “Real compassion…reach our shores” is used to emphasise the mistake that the Labor government made by softening immigration laws. This may reveal to readers the excuses that the Labor government makes instead of admitting wrongdoing to the public. In turn, readers may oppose them for being dishonest. In attempt to strike at the sympathetic heartstring of readers, the editor describes recent events as an “unfolding tragedy” and a “tragic” problem- words which connote suffering and misery. In doing so, the writer attempts to suggest that the migrants require assistance and that it is essential that the government intervenes.

  Similarly, Oakeshott begins his article by informing readers of the ““Christmas Island incident” committee””. He does so to suggest to readers that Julia Gillard is avoiding the issue at hand and that the committee is an excuse, something that “I, nor anyone outside Julia Gillard or key ministers, can value add” Nice add in, very good flow. In the same way that the editorial appeals to readers’ sympathy, Oakeshott uses connotations to paint a picture of chaos. By describing the “wildfire rumour mill” as having “exploded” across Australia- a word that depicts widespread danger- he attempts to harbor fear from readers. Consequently, readers are challenged to consider the damage that this rumour may continue to bring if the truth is not brought to public quickly. This is further reinforced when Oakeshott adds that these rumours may cause “hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy”- words that paint a picture of chaos.
Very good

  Due to the articles being published on the internet, there are videos, pictures, polls and comments accompanying them. The videos and pictures are utilised to emphasise the chaos and misery that caused by the recent boat incident. In addition, the polls titled “Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers in order to prevent further tragedies” and “Do you think establishing a multi-party committee to examine the facts of the Christmas Island boat tragedy is a good idea?” has a majority of readers voting “No”. This, along with the comments posted by readers mainly agreeing with the articles, is highly likely to appeal to readers’ sense of “being part of the crowd”, which may cause a sway in their stance.

  The crux of the editorial resides in its use of statistics complementing his Is it a he? intentions of invoking sympathy in readers. In a similar manner, Oakeshott invokes the specters of chaos and danger in readers. Such emotions are then further compounded upon by accompanying multimedia. It is through such an intricate composition that the writers intend to raise awareness over the issue of asylum seekers.

(667 words)


Firstly, this is my first marking so don't worry too much if you think I'm being unjust or anything like that, I am nice!
It started off slightly too stop and start, but by the first/second paragraph you developed a nice flow that really complemented what you were writing!
There were a couple of occasions where there were some ever so slight slip ups (using the same word in the same paragraph more than once, missing words), but they were only tiny faults so don't worry too much

Overall, I think you have some real potential, and by the end of the year you could definitely be of a 9-10/10 standard!

But for now, I'll give this a 7.0/10

[vea]

Thanks Luken! You're mark seems fairly generous .
So I need to:
-More depth in contention
-Check Microsoft word from changing realise to realize ==
-Use less colloquial language
-Not give the unknown editor and gender.

Also, did anyone find this to be too short? Even though it was a multi-text analysis, I couldn't find much to analyse :\

[luken93]

haha thank you, I didn't want to be harsh

Yep that sounds good to me, at least it will stick in the back of your mind for next time!

As for the length, I don't think any of us are quite ready to be writing 900-1000 word pieces just yet. I personally wrote ~800, but in saying that there wasn't a lot of content within the articles themselves, it was more an emphasis on the visual material around it...

[azngirl456]

attached

[vea]

Thanks for the feedback azngirl456!

Regarding the use of "editor" when describing the writer of the editorial, it was actually shinny who taught me to use that (in his VCE book). I think it's safe to assume that the editor does actually write the editorials even though examiners are probably not that pedantic with it.

[azngirl456]

Thanks for the feedback azngirl456!

Regarding the use of "editor" when describing the writer of the editorial, it was actually shinny who taught me to use that (in his VCE book). I think it's safe to assume that the editor does actually write the editorials even though examiners are probably not that pedantic with it.

oh ok, forget what i said about the editor thing. yeh, it was just a small thing and you're right, the examiners are probably much more concerned about the actual analysis