So for the first week we had one article and one cartoon, with both of them talking about the education system and it's funding. Here we'll discuss the persuasive devices which are being used.
In the first article we saw a lot of appeals being used. I think this is due to the fact that the article is aimed at the parents, and every parent wants their child to succeed. So by using these appeals such as, appeal to a good education, to a sense of equality, sense of success, and appeal to moral righteousness, the author triggers an emotional response of anger, manipulating their feelings. With the parent's feelings evoked, they are more likely to agree and side with the author of the article.
In the article, we can also see some inclusive language being used. By using inclusive language, the author creates a sense of belonging with the reader. Using words such as "we", "us", "our", the author can create the illusion that there are only two sides, and the reader and the author both belong to the same side. The inclusive language combined with authoritative language makes the author sound very persuasive. What the author wrote is of course, his own opinion, but by using these two devices, he comes off as if he is stating a fact. Compare the following two phrases. The first is obviously more persuasive.
"We NEED to..." "I personally believe that we should..."
Another persuasive device which was used was, negative connotation. By using words such as "artificially" and "unsustainable", the author implies that the opposing point of view is wrong and fake. Notice how the author doesn't directly say that they're wrong. He uses those words, to share his point of view with his audience.
The very last two devices that were in the article were, cliché and metaphor. The cliché is basically an overused saying or phrase. Even though the phrase is overused, it gives the audience something that they might of heard before and can convey ideas very succinctly . This is good because it makes the reader very confident with the author and will be more likely to agree with the author.
The final device is the metaphor. Here the author wrote, "filtering their intakes". When the author uses this metaphor, he paints a picture in the reader's minds of a big filter, sorting out all the students and only taking the students that they want.
Our next persuasive piece is a political cartoon. Here we see one large man and one small women. The man seems to be Peter Garret who is the school minister for School Education and the women is Julia Gillard, our prime minister. Peter Garret seems to be following Julia Gillard around in a circle with a dumb idiotic face. The illustrator could be suggesting that Peter Garret is doing whatever Gillard tells him to without question. This could also be supported by the fact that Julia Gillard's "behind" is out of proportion, and could be seen as sexually appealing.
Peter Garret and Julia Gillard seem to be sneaking because of the caption "tip toe", and they are tip toeing in a circle. I think the illustrator is saying that they are getting nowhere with their plans and are just going in circles. The "tip toe" shows that they're trying to be discreet about everything they do.
On Peter Garret's back, there is a backpack with "Gonski Review" on it. This could mean that Julia Gillard does not agree with the Gonski Review, and is instructing Peter Garret to not do anything with it as they are walking around in a circle. Also on the backpack are what seems to be a soft drink and some cookies. Soft drinks and cookies are generally seen as junk food, so this could be a metaphor, saying that the Gonski Review is nothing but junk.
The last notable thing about the cartoon is that Peter Garret and Julia Gillard is both wearing black hats. Black is seen as a dark colour and is usually associated with villian type characters. So by the illustrator drawing the two with black hates, could suggest that the two are villians.
No comments:
Post a Comment