Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

December 04, 2025, 03:48:30 pm

Author Topic: [English] "Oprah loot" language analysis  (Read 844 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Allygator

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +9
  • School: MacRob
[English] "Oprah loot" language analysis
« on: February 24, 2011, 05:27:00 pm »
0
Oprah Winfrey’s recent trip to Australia has instigated much debate within the media about whether or not it was worth Australia’s money. In John Lee’s article, “Oprah loot will line our pockets, too”, he argues in a clam and reasonable manner that the money spent on Oprah’s trip to Australia was not a waste as the show produced due to this will boost Australia’s worldwide tourism greatly. The article aims this contention toward those Australians concerned about the issue due to their taxes contributing to Oprah’s Australia trip.
John Lee opens his article with an explanation of Australia’s reaction to Oprah’s arrival. He refers to the “howls of protest” when Australian’s heard the news of her visit – the dramatic description evoking negative imagery of poorly composed Australians. This serves to drive the reader to view those opposed to Oprah’s visit as immature and overly dramatic. In contrast to this, lee seeks to paint Oprah in a positive light in describing her “unbridled enthusiasm” that Australians responded positively to. Lee goes on to bring up evidence to refute the idea that our taxes are being used to give even more money to an already rich person. He states, “it was spent on… promoting Australia as a must see tourist destination.” This backs up Lees argument that it was in fact not a waste of money to bring Oprah to Australia and in doing so refutes the opposing view.
Lee continues in proposing that the value of the TV show “far exceeds the investment”. This long-term view leads the reader to imagine the possibilities and in turn seeks to convince them that it is in fact a worthy investment. Lee aims to reduce the credibility of those of the view that Australia isn’t doing enough to promote tourism by suggesting they have no evidence for their claims. This is done to demonstrate the reliability of the tourism sector despite criticisms. Lee continues to belittle the opponent’s arguments in mentioning the idea that money was being wasted, as “Americans would confuse Australia with Austria”. This lends weight to Lee’s belief that Australian tourism is on the right track as it positions the reader to view the opposing view as ridiculous and exaggerated. Furthermore Lee demonstrates that critics of Tourism Australia are unreliable, as they can’t even agree on what exactly Australia should be doing to promote itself.
John Lee’s controlled and calm tone in addressing the issue of whether it was worth Australia’s money in bringing Oprah here, employs a variety of persuasive techniques to convince the author that it will benefit Australia’s worldwide tourism immensely.
2010: Biology [48]
2011: English [40] Maths Methods [43] Physics [43] Specialist Maths [34] Chemistry [42] UMAT [96%]
Atar: 98.60

andy456

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
  • Respect: +12
[English] "Oprah loot" language analysis
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2011, 11:11:45 pm »
0
Let me know if you need me to clarify anything.

VCE 2010: Eng 42 | Legal 49 | Chem 37 | MM 34 | Indo SL 33 |
ATAR: 97.45
 
2011: Bachelor of Arts Monash University
2012: Bachelor of Commerce?? Please!!

Allygator

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +9
  • School: MacRob
[English] "Oprah loot" language analysis
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2011, 11:16:09 am »
0
Thanks very much! Very helpful points - I realized it was much too short, but I was feeling lazy :D
2010: Biology [48]
2011: English [40] Maths Methods [43] Physics [43] Specialist Maths [34] Chemistry [42] UMAT [96%]
Atar: 98.60