VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

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

(1/2) > >>

funkyducky:
Week 4 Language Analysis

In the wake of the recent Christmas Island boat tragedy that claimed the lives of over 30 asylum seekers, the Labour party’s relaxed refugee policy has been the focus of significant debate and scrutiny in the Australian media. In “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea”, an editorial published on the Herald Sun website on 16th December 2010, the writer contends that it is imperative that the Federal Government’s asylum seeker policy be amended in order to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future, and aims to invoke a reaction of compassion and empathy from the target audience by using hyperbole and emotive language and video footage to appeal to the reader’s conscience.
   An opinion piece titled “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” by Mr. Rob Oakeshott, Independent Federal MP,  published on the The Age website on 17th December 2010, examines Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s response to the Christmas Island incident. Oakeshott suggests, in a reasoned and deliberate style, that it is necessary for Gillard to outline the facts and details of the tragedy and share this information with the Australian public as soon as possible. Both of these pieces share an audience of those members of the Australian public who hold a genuine interest in the issue of Australia’s policy towards asylum seekers, and the consequences of the Christmas Island tragedy.
   The title of the Herald Sun employs pun (Gillard Government asylum policy “now all at sea”) to attract the reader’s attention by simultaneously referencing the late sinking off the coast of Christmas Island, and emphasising the editor’s assertion that the Labour government’s asylum policy is flawed. This is followed by a short video clip of the tragedy in question, which, coupled with the subtitle of the editorial, serves to emphasise the implications of the tragedy and the reality that many innocent lives were lost. The immediate mention of the number of human lives lost is used to arouse compassion and to lead the audience towards the writer’s argument that the Government’s “flawed asylum seeker policy”  is to be blamed for the unfortunate deaths of the refugees in question. The first half of the editorial uses descriptive  language such as “the hazardous journey” and “leaky boats” and “risk their lives” to highlight the plight of asylum seekers, and make the perilous nature of the journey undertaken by refugees seeking asylum in Australia absolutely clear to the audience. This approach gradually leads the target audience to the editor’s contention that the Labour government’s lax policies are tempting refugees to embark on the voyage to Australia.
   The author uses repetition of the themes of compassion and responsibility throughout the piece, which, in effect, aims to compel the reader to react with empathy towards the victims of the tragedy, and to consider the government’s position of responsibility in this matter.
   Likewise, Oakeshott’s opinion piece explores the Labour Government’s level of responsibility concerning the Christmas Island tragedy. As a Member of Parliament, Oakeshott relates his own personal experience as a member of the multi-party climate change committee in comparison with Gillard’s proposition to hold a similar “Christmas Island incident” committee. His assertion that he, himself cannot “value add” as part of a multi-party committee as “the truth of what happened is known or it is not” is presented to the reader in a straightforward and open fashion, inviting the reader to trust in Oakeshott’s personal experience and opinion concerning the Prime Minister’s proposed committee. The title immediately clarifies Oakeshott’s contention, which is then elaborated upon in the body of the opinion piece.
   Sensationalism and forceful language are utilised by Oakeshott when he states that the rumour of the Australian government’s involvement in the tragedy will lead to “hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy” if unfounded. These ideas are repeated again towards the end of the article, where Oakeshott mentions the concern held by Vietnamese Australian immigrants that the Christmas Island tragedy might give rise to racial tension amongst various ethnic groups within Australia.
   Oakeshott also maintains that the onus lies with Julia Gillard to lead our nation through the aftermath of this tragedy, and to provide “the Australian people” with the facts that they “need” to hear. The inclusive tone of the piece encourages the reader to feel as though they, too, deserve to hear “the truth”, a recurring motif which is, in part, the focus of Oakeshott’s piece. Overall, the writer aims to convince the reader that they are entitled to the facts concerning the Christmas Island boat tragedy, and that the Prime Minister is obliged to share whatever information she has access to, concerning the incident, with the nation that she leads.
   Both Oakeshott’s opinion piece and the Herald Sun editorial make use of numerous persuasive techniques to convince their audience of people who are truly interested in the consequences of the Christmas Island tragedy that the Labour government has a responsibility to take action in order to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring in the future.

NOTE: I apologise for not including the video from the second article in my analysis; for some reason I couldn't get it to play (may have something to do with the ad blocker I have....) This is the first full Language Analysis I've ever written, so constructive criticism is very much welcome :D

EvangelionZeta:
Attached.

funkyducky:
Thanks EZ :) You're help is duly appreciated.

chrisjb:
Here's the things I noticed:

1. Your introduction(s) shoud be shorter and only one.
2. In your first para, you used ()s, I was always taught to not use them in formal language. instead use hyphens.
3. Your analysis of the Herald Sun article was prety good, but your analysis of the age article was not so good (just not enough depth).

One more thing, it doesn't matter very much and you're never going to lose marks over it but it's Labor not Labour (yeah, it's prety trippy).

funkyducky:
Thanks for the input!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page