For maximum benefit, please purchase Become an Expert + Online Exercise Program
The Radio editorial: emotive words and their impact, see p. 69
The radio announcer: Mr Ernie Janks:
Mr Janks adopts a provocative tone and uses negatively-charged expressions to paint a picture of the Minister as a “serial killer”. This implies that he is heartless and cruel.
- Word connotations: he repeats the words “air-strikes” to sensationalise the issue and show how the Minister’s response is inappropriate to the threat caused by the camels.
- Mr Janks uses words with negative connotations to show how the camels are the victims of the government’s “air strikes” and “genocide” campaign. They are being “slaughtered”. Such words conjure up a picture of a war leader, waging war on defenceless animals.
- Word connotations: The word “camelcide” is a pun on “genocide”, suggesting that the camel population will be exterminated. The use of the emotive words “camelcide” and “slaughter” suggests that the decision is cruel. He believes that they are not harming anyone; rather, the “slaughter” is a waste of time, money and effort.
Vox pop
Mr Hopkins draws upon his own first-hand experience to urge caution. He complains about the wasted meat and milk (“$1 million of meat out there”).
- Attack on the Minister’s reputation: Mr Hudson is assertive and quotes the Government’s claim that camels are “smashing taps” in a bid to make Government officials look foolish. The fact that
- there are numerous uses for camels, and the Government cannot find any, presents the government as ignorant.
- The appeal to the hip-pocket nerve (economic potential) is to channel our anger towards the Minister’s misguided decision. Mr Hudson appeals to the hip-pocket: camels could earn money for the government and hence the taxpayer – this appeal increases our sense of outrage at the Government’s plan; he states that camels could earn export dollars as they could be sold as racers to Saudi Arabia.
- Mr Hopkins makes several emotional appeals: the camels appear as the unfortunate victims of a misguided Government campaign – the fact that “they don’t do damage” plays on our sense of compassion for these majestic animals. Mr Hopkins uses parallel phrases, “they’re in desert centres; they’ve got padded feet and they eat plants …” to draw attention to the fact that camels do minimal damage to the environment. The “padded” feet, in particular, predisposes us to understand this point.
Ms Black:
Ms Black seeks to justify the government’s actions by referring to the damage and the “facts”. She suggests that those who overlook the “facts” are foolhardy and ignorant.
- She, too, is quite adamant that they are “not native to Australia”. Ms Black stimulates a sense of alarm at the fact that many species will become extinct. The emotional reference to the fact that they are being “trampled to death” is designed to worry the public.
Sentences with an emphasis on impact
- Mr Janks condemns/repudiates the Minister’s plan and believes it is morally repugnant/reprehensible.
- He challenges us to recognise that the scheme is state sanctioned terrorism
- He invites us to share his indignation at the cost of the scheme.
- He predisposes concerned members of the public to see the government as short-sighted and as “numbskulls”.
- His anticipates that the profligate scheme will antagonise members of the public.
- Mr Chopper seeks to overcome our scepticism and reassure us about the minimal damage of the “padded” feet.
- Ms Black expects Australians to prioritise the welfare of native animals over that of non-natives.
The comparative paragraph
Please write a paragraph showing the similarities or differences in views.
1. Explain the similarities/differences in views.
2. Another sentence to explain how they are similar/different views
3. 2 sentences = specific comments on reasoning/persuasive techniques
Comparative sentences:
Mr Hopkins and Mr Janks
Similarly, Mr Hopkins also defends the camels on the grounds that they do not wreak havoc in the outback. Like Mr Janks, he also defensively believes that the camels are being scapegoated for the wrong reasons. (Or they are wrongly /misguidedly, erroneously the target of people’s outrage and misconceptions.
Specifically, Mr Janks relies on his personal experience as a traveller in the outback to rationalise his view that camels are not harming the fragile desert ecosystem. For example, he refers to their “padded feet” and their fodder as “spinifex” to minimise any harm these animals may cause.
Mr Janks and Ms Black
If Mr Janks defends the camels, Ms Black directs our attention to the damage caused by these non-native animals. By comparing them to native animals, Ms Black believes that they are damaging the fragile desert ecosystem, leading to harm of native species such as …
Furthermore, if Mr Janks criticises the government’s punitive war-like actions with regards to the camels, Ms Black points out why the cull is necessary. The fact that many animals are being “trampled to death” and the lack of flora shows the harsh effect of the camels on the desert environment.
Return to Green Online Exercise Program
If you wish to download the exercises for immediate use, please click here to access a PDF version. This consists of all exercises featured on this page.
Return to Now Turn to Exercise: Green Workbook