VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

[English] "Anna Bligh outperforms Julia Gillard" language analysis

(1/1)

ellecee:
This is my second attempt at LA, as I didn't the previous week's. A biggg thanks to swarley and slammy for marking and concrit for my first essay. :D

February Week 1 Language Analysis

In light of Queensland’s recent flooding tragedy, Australians, especially those affected by the disasters, have been looking up to their leaders for support and inspiration. Susan O’Brien’s opinion piece “Anna Bligh outperforms Julia Gillard in the greatest leadership test of all” featured in the Herald Sun (14/01/2011) presents the view that in these uncertain times, Queensland’s premier, Anna Bligh, has outshone Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in terms of quality of leadership and response to the diasaster.

Although O’Brien targets the general Australian population as her audience in her piece, she does not contend to persuade them into action; rather, her article strives to encourage and inspire all leaders, especially Gillard, to be more proactive and if need be, to be more emotional and connect with their people. Her article is a defence of “new, emotional politics” and invites critics to reconsider their position that those politicians who show their weaknesses are “wannabe Oprahs”. O’Brien attempts to enforce her view that strength can be found through weaknesses by employing a variety of literary and persuasive techniques.

From the beginning, O’Brien employs heavy use of inclusive language to invite audiences to join her in her scrutiny of Australian politicians, predominantly Anna Bligh and Julia Gillard. Her opening sentence is a general statement that promotes debate and introduces the crux of her argument: that “it’s about how they [politicians] make people feel”. Phrases like “we can scrutinise” and “you genuinely believe” not only send readers the message that anyone is free to criticise and judge our politicians, but also plants her thoughts and views in their heads. It also enforces the fact that she is one of them; someone who has similar opinions and is trustworthy.

Throughout the article, O’Brien adopts a logical and conservative approach in order to enfore her contention. She juxtaposes the actions and character traits of Bligh and Gillard. In this way, audience’s can immediately observe the different leadership styles of the two politicians: Bligh has “gritty resolve”, while Gillard “seems unsure” of her role during the aftermath of the Queensland floods. O’Brien implements short, sharp sentences to maintain audience’s interest and put emphasis on her points. She further depicts Bligh’s strong leadership with a string of alliterated words: “calm, composure and compassion”. O’Brien brings her argument to greater depth by listing a series of quotes, for example, “Together we can pull through this... we can achieve it.” These all combine to inspire and influence; she is using Bligh’s charisma and leadership to speak for itself.

On the other hand, Gillard is painted as being “wooden” and “old-school”. O’Brien attacks Gillard’s actions, or lack thereof, during the clean-up of the disaster. She even goes on to suggest that Gillard, who is clearly not in her element, has been a hassle to authorities, rather than a helping hand. The Prime Minister’s failure in “not speaking with any direct knowledge” of affected areas appeals to audience’s sense of morality and justice; clearly, the leader of the nation should understand the country she is serving, especially when it involves disasters. The phrase shows the extent of Gillard’s inadequacy in leading and inspiring a nation in despair. O’Brien’s inclusion of her ignorance incites anger in readers. Thus, audience’s are able to contrast the two different leadership styles as she provides perspective of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ of politics.

O’Brien reiterates her point of view by evidencing that Bligh’s actions are not the norm. Her integrity and genuineness is further exemplified by the statement that most politicians tour disaster-stricken areas to gain “political mileage” and reputation. Her quip that John Brumby “rarely had a hair out of place” during his tour is a subtle jibe at such politicians. She contends to influence other politicians to not be “posturing and posing”, but rather hands on and helping, like Bligh. Furthermore, O’Brien reminds readers that while sympathy and compassion make Bligh stand out from Gillard, and other politicians, she was also a vital element in updating and informing the public; and she herself, had “remarkable grasp of the situation”. Bligh’s understanding and closeness to the general community is emphasised by the rhetorical question, “Surely a woman with her own mother’s house in the flood path would... be so emotional about it all?” This not only invites the participation of readers, but coerces them to answer in the positive, thus sharing her view,

By putting Bligh on a pedestal of integrity and genuineness, O’Brien hopes to set her up as role model for all Australians, especially its leaders. She takes on a calm rationale, employing inclusive language to compel the audience’s stance, juxtaposition and quotation to increase Bligh’s credibility, as well as condemning Gillard and other “old-school” politicians. Thus, pushing for a change and giving hope to those in disaster zones.

leona0123:

--- Quote from: ellecee on February 11, 2011, 08:55:46 pm ---Although O’Brien targets the general Australian population as her audience in her piece, she does not contend to persuade them into action; rather, her article strives to encourage and inspire all leaders, especially Gillard, to be more proactive and if need be, to be more emotional and connect with their people. Her article is a defence of “new, emotional politics” and invites critics to reconsider their position that those politicians who show their weaknesses are “wannabe Oprahs”. O’Brien attempts to enforce her view that strength can be found through weaknesses by employing a variety of literary and persuasive techniques.

--- End quote ---

This is a really interesting take on the contention and is the first of its kind that I have read. While it is not the way most people have approached the analysis of this article, I think you have managed to back your ideas up quite well.
One thing I can say is that your last paragraph seems very subjective, like you have added in your own opinion and evaluated the effectiveness of the article too much. Don't take my essay as an example because I probably did the same thing, but I am just pointing it out :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index