can someone mark/read my language analysis please?

[Ashhh]

Ok so here is one of my attempts, I know it is not at a very high standard being so close to the exam but I have been trying to improve my context... so any feedback would be helpful 

I know i tend to overuse vocab and stuff like that.. but let me know what you think
b]

Solar Sellout[/center

In the opinion piece entitled ‘solar sellout’ appearing in a local Melbourne newspaper the author, Bob Walsh, asserts that the proposal by the mayor to charge a ‘greenhouse levy’ on all premises which don’t have a solar hot-water system by 2010 is an ‘inexcusable abuse of residents’ rights’ . Mr. Walsh writes in a sarcastic and angry tone which is quite personal, and aims to clearly outline why the proposal by the government is a bad idea.

Mr. Walsh manipulates the reader by using a series of techniques to convey his point of view. The first technique which stands out is the headline, and the use of a graphic. The headline ‘solar sellout’ is conveying the meaning that the proposal will be exactly that, a “sellout”. The photograph stands out instantly due to its size and placement on the page. It shows a figure that represents the mayor who is very large, and seems powerful cutting the power line. This representation is reaffirmed in the piece when the author speaks of the mayor as “an undeserving, lazy hippie riff-raff” The photo shows citizens handing over money to the mayor which is being put into his pocket, representing the levy as just giving the local government money. The headline and the photo position the reader to visualize what may happen as a result of the proposal.

The author uses a series of techniques to emphasise his point of view. By putting emphasis on specific words such as “hate” and “own” in italics, Bob Walsh supports his opinion, alongside this the author uses a range of emotive and sarcastic language. Sarcastic language such as “he’d rather rob the residents blind” and emotive language like “… become a captive of the radical environmentalists” position the reader to react emotionally and therefore allows the reader to understand the opinion of the author.

Throughout the piece Bob Walsh offers examples of statistics and expert opinion to support his contention.  Statistics such as “The cost? $200 per house, and $500 per business!”  position the reader to think of things in a logical sense, in addition to this they appeal to the sense of hip pocket. Appealing to the sense of money is a strong support because as people reader the piece they are possibly thinking to themselves that they don’t want to pay money.  Along with statistics the author offers expert opinion from the Australian Greenhouse Office, stating that “everyone assumes that solar hot water systems actually reduce carbon emissions but they clearly won’t”  he then goes onto say “house holds in Australia are responsible for around 17% of these and… hot water systems are responsible of #0% of this 17%... 17% of 30%=5.1%” This offers a great flaw in the governments plan and positions the reader to place doubt in the government.

The author ends his piece with another example of emotive language “if the mayor genuinely cared about the planet, he would be lobbying for more nuclear power plants, rather than squandering public money of frivolous solar panels” The use of this as the final statement leaves a lasting effecting on the reader, which leaves the authors contention as the last thing on the audience’s minds.

The author, Bob Walsh, effectively conveys his point of view. The use of photos, statistics and emotive language attempt to manipulate the reader to agree with the point of view which is clearly conveyed.

Word count: 566

[doboman]

I think it is a pretty strong analysis- but its shortness deters from the analysis' quality quite substantially.

[costargh]

I'll let someone else mark yours. I did the same analysis and got a 9 for it (although mine is WAYYY too long and I did it over a few hours, not in exam conditions. I repeat; by no means should your analysis be this long!

On your analysis:
-Some bits are WAY too vague. eg. "Sarcastic language such as “he’d rather rob the residents blind” and emotive language like “… become a captive of the radical environmentalists” position the reader to react emotionally and therefore allows the reader to understand the opinion of the author."
Of course if he's using emotive language, he is going to evoke emotion but go further than that.
-"The use of this as the final statement leaves a lasting effecting on the reader, which leaves the authors contention as the last thing on the audience’s minds."
That's too general. Can you see how generic that is? It need to relate to the actual article



The local council of Greenville recently made a proposal for all houses and businesses to install solar hot-water systems by 2010. Houses and businesses that who have not installed solar hot-water systems by then would be charged a “greenhouse levy”. The initial response by the Greenville community was mostly positive; however some residents have expressed anger over the proposal. Published in a local newspaper, an opinion piece and its accompanying cartoon written by high-profile local businessman and advocate for nuclear power, Bob Walsh, contends that the proposal which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not appropriate for the small suburb of Greenville. The title, “Solar Sellout” intends to illustrate the proposal of mandatory solar panels as a ‘revenue raiser’, questioning the motives and agenda of the council. The article is laced with a livid tone and pleas passionately with other residents to resist the proposal and for the council to scrap its policy of mandatory solar panel installation by 2010.

The cartoon which accompanies the article immediately draws the readers’ attention and juxtaposes the consequences of either installing solar panels or resisting the change. The cartoon depicts a clear social divide in the community as well as illustrating the mayor as a money grabbing giant who can’t be trusted and. Those who can are illustrated as having white roofs are those who can afford the solar panels and thus are left alone by the mayor. Conversely, those with black roofs symbolise those who cannot afford solar panels and thus the mayor preys on them through the “greenhouse levy”. This clear contrast intends to portray those without solar panels as victims, thus appealing to the community’s desire for equality and fairness in society. The significance the mayor taking money from the residents is that it represents the proposal as a ‘revenue raiser’, thus positioning the audience to feel that the council has a hidden agenda and cannot be trusted. The irony of smoke bellowing from the solar panelled houses is that while the proposal is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is apparent that the effects of this proposal on the environment will be minimal. The audience is therefore led to question whether the council’s agenda is pure, with the ultimate realisation being that it is most probably not.

Mr Walsh commences his article by attacking the “radical environmentalists” who have made the council their “captive”.  By describing environmentalists as “radical”, Mr Walsh evokes a sense of fear in the audience, questioning whether environmentalists can be trusted and if they are safe to be consulted with. This prompts the reader to question the integrity of the council and their ability to fend off environmental lobby groups who have their own vested interest and agenda. The term “captive” forces the reader to question the credibility of the council in its ability to make logical decisions on the community’s behalf. Such an implication is likely to leave readers questioning the real motivations behind the council’s decision. The use of the loaded term “incredibly” compels the reader to consider the proposal as ridiculous and out of line. Furthermore, its use belittles those who are supporters of the proposal and leads the reader to consider supporters of the proposal as absurd. A passionate tone is apparent throughout the opening paragraph and epitomised when the author says “The cost? $200 per house, and $500 per business!” By asking a rhetorical question and then answering it himself, Mr Walsh ridicules the suggestion of the cost to the consumer. This appeals to the readers sense of financial security and makes the suggestion seem ridiculous.

 The author continues with his loaded language saying that “this is a blatant abuse of residents’ rights...” in an attempt to appeal to the audiences self interest and desire for freedom. By describing the citizens as “innocent” Mr Walsh creates a divide between the council and the residents of Greenville. This intends to imply to the reader that the residents are the victims of the proposal and the council is set to take advantage of the residents. This compels the reader to feel a sense of resistance to the change and to see the council as the enemy. This conflict is further exacerbated when the author states that if the proposal was to become policy it ,“would represent the victory of an undeserving, lazy, hippie riff-raff”. The use of the term, “victory” intends to highlight that there will inevitably be a loser from the outcome of the proposal and that if resistance is not generated, it will be Greenville community. This plays on the readers desire to be a ‘winner’ and prompts the reader into action against the proposal.

   Mr Walsh then diverts attention away from the issue and highlights the councils ‘blind eye’ towards problems in Greenville such as inadequate infrastructure such as “school facilities” and “the public library”. By offering different examples of council inaction, Mr Walsh attempts to make as many residents as possible feel as though they have been affected by the council’s inaction. This has the affect of infuriating the reader with the council and further broadening the gap between residents and the council. This is apparent when Mr Walsh contends that the mayor would “rather rob the residents’ blind” than fix the problems in the community. Such a statement further conveys to the reader the author’s belief that through this proposal, residents are essentially being preyed upon by a somewhat tyrannical council. An appeal to financial hardship is made when Mr Walsh contends that the plan would “disadvantage [those] who can’t afford to build ‘green’”. ”. Such a statement would raise serious concern amongst the low socio-economic groups in the community, undoubtedly coming to the fearful conclusion that their financial security may be seriously compromised under the proposed changes. This is juxtaposed with the “well-off lefties who want to buy their way out of a guilty conscience”. The use of “well-off lefties” intends to evoke a sense of unfairness in the reader, whereby inequality is highlighted. This intends to highlight the absurdity of the idea that money can somehow make the “well-off lefties” less accountable for greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Walsh again makes use of exclusive language to highlight the battle that exists when he says “why expect the rest of the community to shoulder the burden?” The repetitive nature of this argument instils a sense of resentment towards the council. The battle is again exemplified when he says “They don’t like us being comfortable. They hate the thought of us enjoying ourselves. They want us to suffer.” The continual use of exclusive language evokes resentment towards those who aren’t on the side of Mr Walsh, thus compelling the reader to side with Mr Walsh’s argument. Furthermore the reader is led to feel victimised which evokes anger towards the council due to their apparent attack on the reader’s livelihood.

   In a bid to add credibility to his argument, Mr Walsh utilises statistics by stating that even if every Australian household installed hot water systems, “greenhouse gases would only be reduced by...just 5.1%”. The use of these statistics is employed not only to add credibility to his own argument but to discredit the council’s claim that its proposal would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The absurdity of the councils claim is then epitomised when the author says “Greenville only represents a tiny fraction of that 5.1%” so “how can one suburb’s actions affect the whole world?” The author’s satirical use of this rhetorical question aims to embarrass the council and its proposal, thus compelling the reader to believe the council’s argument has been discredited and that Mr Walsh’s is the most valid. Furthermore, Mr Walsh appeals to the reader’s traditional values when he describes “solar panels [as] eyesores” on “Greenville’s...  beautiful heritage”. This is designed to play on the readers love for their home and to act as a resistance to change. In an appeal to the reader’s sense of fear, Mr Walsh warns that this proposal would result in a, “return to the dark ages”, thus instilling a sense of concern in the audience of the repercussions of this proposals implementation. The continual description of environmentalists as “hippies” is intended to evoke negative connotations in the reader’s mind and to stereotype all environmentalists as ‘weed smoking radicals’. By further degrading the supporters of the proposal, such labelling techniques aim to further discredit the proposal. This stereotype creates a sense of distrust of environmentalists and therefore prompts the reader to disagree with their arguments.
   
Finally, Mr Walsh proposes his own alternative to this proposal and challenges the mayor to “lobby governments for more nuclear power plants, rather than squander public money on frivolous solar panels”. The term “frivolous” intends to ridicule the proposal and compels the reader to feel that there are far more effective alternatives than the council’s current proposal. Furthermore, contrasting the current proposal with his own proposal, allows Mr Walsh to appear knowledgeable on the issue, thus enhancing his credibility. By playing on the readers sense of self-interest, financial insecurity and suspicion of authority, Mr Walsh prompts the reader to consider that the councils proposal would be ineffective and would unduly repress individual freedoms and rights; inappropriate for Greenville and the greater good.

Word count: 1539
   

[xox.happy1.xox]

Yay... Insight exam! (I had to say that, couldn't resist)

[Ashhh]

thanks

[bec]

It's interesting that you both say "Mr Walsh". I've always just said the last name without a title - have your teachers told you to use Mr/Ms?

[Ashhh]

I don't think I have been specifically told, but reading some practice essays etc

It was something I picked up when I first started la, so I could've been told ??

I have never been told that it is wrong

[shinny]

It's kinda awkward I'd say <_< Doesn't sound quite right...it's too uh...'intimate' for a lack of a better word I think. In formal pieces, you don't tend to say Mr in front of people's names because you don't really know them. Can't imagine a psychology report continually referencing people like 'Mr Freud said'. But whatever, I don't think anyone's going to really care.

[bec]

Yeah I doubt it makes any difference, you're not going to lose or gain marks on it - just curious though!

[ice_blockie]

Overall, your introduction is solid; you’ve identified the tone, contention and text type! Well done! Perhaps try to include more in your essay, although 600 words is sufficient, it would be good if you could get it to around 700 by Friday. Just analyse the cartoon a bit more, say 50 – 100 words, perhaps giving a whole paragraph if you want…(Don’t worry, I love cartoons, I get carried away and write half my essay on it…anyway)

Your structure of your essay that needs some tweaking, especially the first and second. Your essay is coherent and fluent, but I think it you put a little more time thinking about how to order your analysis, it would help you a lot.

IN GENERAL: FOR EVERYONE TOO

I think you could clarify your topic sentences better. Identify the approach he is taking. Imagine yourself being lead by Bob Walsh:

How is he leading you?
What is trying to tell you?
How does he make you feel?
How does he portray the opposition?

Analysing a media text can be compared to going on a long holiday trip through Australia. As you read the language analysis, the arguments change, and you’re told different things.

At the start, you might be told that the proponents of what idea are crazy, the author uses emotional language, hyperbole, similes, metaphors, etc.

Through the middle, you may be convinced that the author’s point of view is logical, because he gives statistics, authority references, cause and effect ideas, etc…

By the end, he might be appealing to your sense of fear, by using analogies, imagery, symbolism, anecdotes, exaggeration, juxtaposition, etc.

As you can see, a media text is an integrated approach, and everything works together as one. So when thinking about linking things together, think about the changes in the text and how the way you feel changes.

This is a particularly important part of the new English Study Design where students are encouraged to focus on the text as a whole, rather than searching for techniques and commenting on each one like a shopping list.

So looking at your first paragraph – in many opinion pieces, the author attempts immediately to highlight the dichotomy (divide between two sides of the debate) by portraying himself and his ‘team’ as credible, reliable, logical and reasonable members of society. Conversely, the ‘enemy’ is usually described as extremist, ignorant, selfish, shallow or just down right weird.

So, in this particular paragraph, you could say, as a topic sentence, something like ‘Bob Walsh immediately presents readers with a disturbing depiction of the council and its supporters, likely to evoke concern and distain…” Then, go on with your ‘riff raff’ and ‘robbing blind’ portrayals.

Only thing, your essay gets better by the end. Everything reads clearer, more fluently and your last few paragraphs have a logical structure.

If you want to know what score you could get, I think this essay is in the range of 7 – 8.

All the best, for the exams!

[Ashhh]

Thanks ice-blockie for your feedback.
It is really helpful!

[ice_blockie]

Your welcome!