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

[Allygator]

The recent Christmas Island tragedy has sparked further discussion within the media. In The Age’s article, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea”, it is argued in a respectful and reasonable fashion that the Governments flawed policies concerning asylum seekers are resulting in numerous deaths and therefore need to be re-evaluated.  Conversely, the Herald Suns Rob Oakeshott in his article “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” proposes in a measured and sensible manner that we simply don’t have enough information to pass judgment on the issue and therefore Julia Gillard needs to provide the facts for Australian people. Both articles aim to present their contention to those Australians concerned about the issue.

Rob Oakeshott opens his article comparing the issue of asylum seekers to that of climate change. His admittance to his ability to “appreciate the opportunity to value add” demonstrates that he is a reasonable person to soften the audiences reaction to his contention. He continues to argue in an authoritative manner that “this is a moment for the Prime Minister to lead”. Oakeshott’s tone therefore leaves little room for alternative opinions, positioning the reader to accept the idea that this is “not a moment for a committee”. To highlight the little factual information being argued upon, Oakeshott makes consistent reference to the issue being a “rumour”. This terms connotation attempts to erode the reader’s ability to trust the numerous articles surrounding the issue. He also refers to the “hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy” that this rumour will bring about. This strong language is employed to shock the reader and persuade them to accept the dangers of such a rumour.

Furthermore, Oakeshott suggests that currently emotion or fear are dominating rather than facts, to continue to undermine the credibility of articles with opposing contentions. He encourages readers to question the information Australians have been given with an entire paragraph of rhetorical questions. This serves to highlight the limitations in the facts the government has given its people. Hence, Oakeshott proposes that it “lingers now with Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard”. This phrase seeks to evoke a sense of hope but also urgency from the reader to solve this issue. The article also has a short video included to demonstrate the gravity and urgency of the problem involved with asylum seekers. It refers to the “screaming” able to be heard to evoke sympathy from the viewer.  Also included is a poll to show that Australian’s in general back up the author’s contention in an attempt to convince the reader it is the ‘right’ opinion.

In contrast to the Herald Suns article concerning asylum seekers, The Age’s article focuses on the flawed asylum seeker policy and the multiple deaths caused. The author begins with the facts: “confirmed deaths of 27 men, women and children” to verify the reality of the issue to the reader. To further this the author refers to the “desperate cries of asylum seekers” and describes the journey to Australia as “hazardous”. This emotive appeal seeks to evoke sympathy and to highlight the immensity of the problem. While the author acknowledges the government’s good intentions for softening the immigration laws, he/she suggests that “real compassion” looks a bit different. This demonstrates that the decision was poorly thought out in an attempt to position the reader to view the government in a negative light.

To evoke a sense of concern and a realization of how pressing the issue is, the author suggests, “that yesterday’s tragedy raises further questions”. This also promotes questioning the government’s policy concerning illegal immigrants. The authors suggestion that these laws must be tightened is softened by his/her acknowledgement of how “harsh that might sound”. This serves to make it appear more logical so the reader may be more likely to listen to the contention. Accompanying the article is a short video to highlight the reality and gravity of the issue. The scene of a reported at Christmas Island attempts to increase the credibility of the report, as he is right at the scene. A poll is also included to further back up the authors contention as it shows that over 88% of the general public agrees with the idea that Australia needs to tighten its laws.

The articles in The Age and Herald Sun both demonstrate their opinions in a frank yet respectful fashion, employing various language techniques, videos and polls in order to persuade the reader. While Oakeshott contends that the deaths of asylum seekers are increasing due to the governments weak laws, the Herald Sun’s article argues that there is not enough factual information backing up the discussion within the media and we should leave it up to Julia Gillard to solve the problem.

[chrisjb]

The recent Christmas Island tragedy has sparked further discussion within the media. In The Age’s article, “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea”, it is argued in a respectful and reasonable fashion that the Governments flawed policies concerning asylum seekers are resulting in numerous deaths and therefore need to be re-evaluated.  Conversely, the Herald Suns Rob Oakeshott in his article “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” proposes in a measured and sensible manner that we simply don’t have enough information to pass judgment on the issue and therefore Julia Gillard needs to provide the facts for Australian people. Both articles aim to present their contention to those Australians concerned about the issue.I liked this intro, but you mixed up the articles (Oakeshott wrote for the age)

Rob Oakeshott opens his article comparing the issue of asylum seekers to that of climate change. His admittance to his ability to “appreciate the opportunity to value add” demonstrates that he is a reasonable person to soften the audiences reaction to his contentionI didn't relay understand that sentence. He continues to argue in an authoritative manner that “this is a moment for the Prime Minister to lead”. Oakeshott’s tone therefore leaves little room for alternative opinions, positioning the reader to accept the idea that this is “not a moment for a committee”. To highlight the little factual information being argued upon, Oakeshott makes consistent reference to the issue being a “rumour”. This terms connotation attempts toI think that sounded a bit awkward. erode the reader’s ability to trust the numerous articles surrounding the issue. He also refers to the “hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy” that this rumour will bring about. This strong language is employed to shock the reader and persuade them to accept the dangers of such a rumour.

Furthermore, Oakeshott suggests that currently emotion or fear are dominating rather than facts, to continue to undermine the credibility of articles with opposing contentions. He encourages readers to question the information Australians have been given with an entire paragraph of rhetorical questions. This serves to highlight the limitations in the facts the government has given its people. Hence, Oakeshott proposes that it “lingers now with Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard”. This phrase seeks to evoke a sense of hope but also urgency from the reader to solve this issue. The article also has a short video included to demonstrate the gravity and urgency of the problem involved with asylum seekers. It refers to the “screaming” able to be heard to evoke sympathy from the viewer.  Also included is a poll to show that Australian’s in general back up the author’s contention in an attempt to convince the reader it is the ‘right’ opinion. This paragraph was a little loose, perhaps it could have been split into two seperate paragraphs as the focus wasn't very obivious  here and there was a little bit too much going on.

In contrast to the Herald Suns article concerning asylum seekers, The Age’s article focuses on the flawed asylum seeker policy and the multiple deaths caused. The author begins with the facts: “confirmed deaths of 27 men, women and children” to verify the reality of the issue to the reader. To further this the author refers to the “desperate cries of asylum seekers” and describes the journey to Australia as “hazardous”. This emotive appeal seeks to evoke sympathy and to highlight the immensity of the problem. While the author acknowledges the government’s good intentions for softening the immigration laws, he/she awks suggests that “real compassion” looks a bit different. This demonstrates that the decision was poorly thought out in an attempt to position the reader to view the government in a negative light.

LinkTo evoke a sense of concern and a realization of how pressing the issue is, the author suggests, “that yesterday’s tragedy raises further questions”. This also promotes questioning the government’s policy concerning illegal immigrants. The author's suggestion that these laws must be tightened is softened by his/her acknowledgement of how “harsh that might sound”. This serves to make it appear more logical so the reader may be more likely to listen to the contentiona little vuage. New paragraphAccompanying the article is a short video to highlight the reality and gravity of the issue. The scene of a reported at Christmas Island attempts to increase the credibility of the report, as he is right at the scene. A poll is also included to further back up the authors contention as it shows that over 88% of the general public agrees with the idea that Australia needs to tighten its laws.

The articles in The Age and Herald Sun both demonstrate their opinions in a frank yet respectful fashion, employing various language techniques, videos and polls in order to persuade the reader. While Oakeshott contends that the deaths of asylum seekers are increasing due to the governments weak laws, the Herald Sun’s article argues that there is not enough factual information backing up the discussion within the media and we should leave it up to Julia Gillard to solve the problem.

That was good. You could do with a bit more comparing and contrasting though. Every paragraph or two have a sentence allong the lines of 'this directly contrasts the language used by...' or 'this aproach is fundamentaly different to that taken by...' or 'This is quite simmilar to the aproach taken by...' Or, some people chose to do that in the conclusion (but i wouldn't recomend it as conclusions should be short imo).
Watch out for generic statements too (see the week three assesment report- i think it's stickied on this board).

Use more paragraphs, the video probably deserved a paragraph to itself imo.

Also, make sure you read over your work and fix up any wonky expression and look for little mistakes (like getting the newspapers mixed up).

As for things you did well,

Your quote integration was quite good.
I liked your introduction.
You had some lines of very good analysis of technique.
Conlcusion was nice.
You seemed to fix up that flow problem I highlighted in your last essay. (it did pop up once but that's not a problem).
Didn't use so much 'collourfull language' which is good.

Defs an improvement on your last essay imo.