[2016 LA Club] Week 8

[heids]

Nothing like the start of Term 2 as a place to start if you haven't joined yet!  (Shhhh, don't argue.  It sounds good. )

Spoiler

Please turn off alarm

Can somebody please shut off the alarm. The corals bleaching, the bush burning more often and hotter, the country either in drought or floods (or both) and so on. Let's stick our heads deeper in the sand, approve more useless coal mining and dismantle scientific research. Surely we can prohibit the media from reporting on it all?

Dieter Liebrich, Kingsville

Along with the following visual:

[One Step at a Time]

Hi everyone 

Seen the LA Club floating around, but never had the guts to post until now... so I was wondering if I could start with this week or do I need to start from Week 1?

Thanks in advance 

[HopefulLawStudent]

You can start at this week if you want or you can start in week one. You could even start in week 3 if you so desired. It doesn't matter at all that much.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Side note: Is this to do with that whole CSIRO cuts and climate change thing that was in the media a while back?

[heids]

Yup, anyone can join in and post whatever whenever. 

Side note: Is this to do with that whole CSIRO cuts and climate change thing that was in the media a while back?

It is indeed, but I figured it could still be relevant since climate change is still an ongoing issue

[Anonymous]

Hey! Hope it's not too late to join This AN language analysis club is actually such an ingenious idea!!! I think it's gonna be one of the best resources on this already amazing forum.

Okay so here goes, please be harsh and criticise to your heart's content

Thanks again for this awesome opportunity


- Liz


Following the rise of media coverage on climate change and subsequently climate change denial, in a short article titled “Please turn off the alarm”, Dieter Liebrich contends with a scathing and sarcastic tone that instead of avoiding the pressing issue of climate change, action must be taken to protect Earth. The use of a visual complements the author, promoting his point of view through a different format and fortifying his arguments.

By likening media coverage of climate change to that of an alarm, Liebrich begins by mocking the situation where authorities are treating climate change as an “alarm”, something that can be turned off and in human’s control. Contrasted with words of destruction such as “burning”, “bleaching”, the author juxtaposes the everydayness and normality of an alarm clock with the devastating outcomes of climate change denial, further emphasising it’s absurdity to the audience and sways them to the author’s point of view. The connotations of the phrases “drought” and “flood” paints an imagery of natural disaster, creating a sense of urgency and appealing to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that natural disaster may happen if no action is taken, whilst highlighting the direness of the situation.

Through the use of strong language, Liebrich continues to denigrate authority for their disbelief and reluctance to take action against climate change. The connotations of the phrases such as “stick our heads deeper in the sand”, “useless” and “dismantle” all suggest to the audience that the authority is incompetent and is not addressing the issue effectively. Associating the act of burying one’s head in sand with climate change denial, Liebrich attacks authorities in charge, suggesting that instead of taking appropriate action, they are avoiding the inevitable and instead worsening the crisis. This positions the audience to distrust authority, whilst strengthening the author’s contention. The use of a provocative question packed with sarcasm also consolidates the author’s point of view, suggesting that the problem will disappear if media reportage is stopped, once again accentuating the illogicalness of climate change denial.

The use of an accompanying image positions the audience to share the author’s viewpoint that avoiding and denying climate change is not a solution, simultaneously stressing the urgency of the issue. Depicting a well-dressed man in formal wear whose head is buried under sand in what is seen to be a desert, the vast and empty background evoking a sense of despair and fear in the audience. The empty desert appeals once again to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that there is a possibility that this may possibly be the outcome of climate change denial in the future, if no action was to be taken. The man, symbolising the government and authority, is portrayed in an almost comical light, which underscores the idiocy of their actions in terms of their reluctance to accept the truth.

Throughout this short article, Dieter Liebrich employs a variety of language to appeal to the many different emotions of the audience. The use of a visual complements his arguments and allows the audience to see the relevance and logic of their contention. In doing so, the audience is able to be swayed towards Liebrich’s contention that climate change denial is absurd and is jeopardising the future of our planet, and that action must be taken instead of avoiding the issue.

[literally lauren]

Following the rise of media coverage on climate change and subsequently climate change denial, in a short I'm being stupidly fussy here, but you don't really have to include this - it's not like any assessor is going to say 'omg, instant -5 marks for calling it short,' but since it's not really accomplishing anything, it's kind of just amounts to a few wasted seconds spent writing that word article titled “Please turn off the alarm”, Dieter Liebrich contends with a scathing and sarcastic tone that instead of avoiding the pressing issue of climate change, action must be taken to protect Earth. The use of a visual complements the author, promoting his point of view through a different format and fortifying his arguments bit general for an outline of the visual's point, but this is sufficient for an intro. I tended to briefly mention what the visual depicted too (i.e. 'the use of a visual depicting an individual with their head in the sand complements Liebrich's argument by suggesting that...') <-- and you could isolate a more specific way in which the visual 'fortifies' Liebrich's point here, but it's not super important, esp. since you want to keep the intro succinct to get to the analysis ASAP.

By likening media coverage of climate change to that of an "alarm," just stick the quotation marks here and you won't need to Liebrich begins by mocking the situation where authorities are treating climate change as an “alarm”, something that can be turned off and in human’s control. Contrasted with words of that connote/ are associated with destruction such as “burning”, “bleaching”, the author juxtaposes the everydayness and normality of an alarm clock with the devastating outcomes of climate change denial, further emphasising it’s no apostrophe here absurdity to the audience and sways them to the author’s point of view. THIS IS TOO GENERAL! It's one of the most common assessor's complaints too - students use phrases like "...which reinforces the author's contention" where they're technically right, but because they haven't been specific enough, it's hard to justify giving their analysis credit. So what facet of the author's point of view is involved here? The connotations of the phrases “drought” and “flood” paints an imagery of natural disaster, creating a sense of urgency and appealing to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that natural disaster may happen if no action is taken, whilst highlighting the direness of the situation. Good; bit repetitious towards the end there, but love your close discussion of language

Through the use of strong language, try to avoid this phrase - I know it's a technique that teacher's reinforce, but it's really general and not worth much. It's kind of like 'emotive language;' unless you're going to tell us which emotions are involved or in what way this language is 'strong,' it's not worth much. Liebrich continues to denigrate authority for their disbelief and reluctance to take action against climate change. The connotations of the phrases such as “stick our heads deeper in the sand”, “useless” and “dismantle” these seem to have different connotations to the previous phrase, and when the quotes are decontextualised like this, it's tough to see how they're persuasive all suggest to the audience that the authority is incompetent and is not addressing the issue effectively. Associating the act of burying one’s head in sand with climate change denial, Liebrich attacks authorities in charge, suggesting that instead of taking appropriate action, they are avoiding the inevitable and instead worsening the crisis. Good discussion of the author's intention here This positions the audience to distrust authority, whilst strengthening the author’s contention. The use of a provocative question and what question would that be? packed bit colloquial. 'loaded' would be better with sarcasm also consolidates the author’s point of view, too vague! suggesting that the problem will disappear if media reportage is stopped, once again accentuating the illogicalness nature of climate change denial.

The use of an accompanying image positions the audience to share the author’s viewpoint that avoiding and denying climate change is not a solution, simultaneously stressing the urgency of the issue. Depicting a well-dressed man in formalwear whose head is buried under sand in what is seen to be a desert, the vast and empty background evoking a sense of despair and fear in the audience. The empty desert appeals once again to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that there is a possibility that this may possibly be the outcome of climate change denial in the future, if no action was to be taken. The man, symbolising the government and authority, how do you know? You're right, but how do you know? is portrayed in an almost comical light, how so? which underscores the idiocy of their actions in terms of their reluctance to accept the truth.

Throughout this short article, Dieter Liebrich employs a variety of language to appeal to the many different emotions of the audience. The use of a visual complements his arguments and allows the audience to see the relevance and logic of their contention. Both of these sentences are a bit too general to carry any weight. Beginning your conclusions with a sentence like 'By doing X, the author seeks to Y' might be more useful. In doing so, the audience is able to be swayed towards Liebrich’s contention an active verb would be stronger here - i.e. 'the author implies' not 'it is implied to readers by the author that...' that climate change denial is absurd and is jeopardising the future of our planet, and that action must be taken instead of avoiding the issue.

Overall, great close analysis skills and you've got a good grasp of the contention. It's mainly just a few minor issues with your specificity that need work, so avoid any sentence of phrase that's general enough to apply to any L.A. piece.

Also, this sentence: Depicting a well-dressed man in formalwear whose head is buried under sand in what is seen to be a desert, the vast and empty background evoking a sense of despair and fear in the audience. is ungrammatical. See if you can work out why (since you seem to have a pretty good internal grammar anyway, so it'll hopefully be an easy mistake to fix). If not, read the red/green stuff here. If you're still lost, let me know and I'll explain further

[Anonymous]

Thanks Lauren! My teachers do tell me I write a lot of general and "vague" sentences that could be applied to any language analysis 

Hmmm, as for that dodgy sentence, I think I should have broken it off instead of trying to add in the detail about the background.
So would a better sentence be:


The visuals depicts a a well-dressed man in formalwear whose head is buried under sand, in a what seems to be a barren desert. The emptiness of the background of the arid desert evokes a sense of despair in the audience, as it represents what the Earth could come to if the issue of climate change is not addressed.


Thanks again for your feedback Lauren!
-Liz

[HopefulLawStudent]

Liebrich mocks those who resist acknowledging climate change, suggesting such a decision would ultimately do nothing to eradicate the associated dangers. The Kingsville resident’s sombre enumerations of the effects of climate change, such as “corals bleaching” and “bush[es] burning”, confronts the audience with the potential consequences of not taking immediate action. The writer juxtaposes this with the response of those resistant to climate change which was to "stick [their] heads deeper in the sand". In doing so, the writer caustically condemns this attitude, depicting it as illogical and dangerous. To this end, she manoeuvres the reader to perceive ignoring the issue at hand will do nothing to stop it. Liebrich punctuates this with the accompanying image of a man with his head in the sand. All that can be seen in the photo is an expanse of sand and the blue sky above; in the near vicinity of the man, the audience may observe no distinctive features or signs of life. The implication is that if the audience choose to adopt a similar stance to climate change, the world as they know it will become the bland and lifeless place observed in the image. She further expands on her censure of climate change resistors through the rhetorical question that closes her letter to the editor. Her question ostensibly suggests it is possible to “prohibit the media from reporting” on issues relevant to their audience, despite it being what they were supposed to do. To this end, she appeals to her audience’s reason and logic to highlight just how naïve it was to ignore the issue of climate change. She thus vilifies those who refuse to acknowledge climate change as a relevant issue. Unwilling to be amongst those who are so scathingly censured by Liebrich, the audience is thus inclined to seek to distance themselves from climate change naysayers.  Therefore, she positions the audience to seek to directly confront the issue of climate change instead of paying no heed to it.

[Anonymous]

In the letter to the editor, "Please turn off alarm", Liebrich addresses that the climate change dilemma should be dealt with and not avoided. He symbolises the "alarm" as the warning signs that indicate that climate change is approaching. In a sarcastic and later shift to a questioning tone, Liebrich intends the subject of climate change to portray as a serious matter.

Liebrich begins by pleading "somebody to turn off the alarm", which attempt to encourage the reader to be the person that attentive to these warning signs of climate change. Liebrich use of words "bleaching" and "burning" when describing the corals and bushes suggest that the natural environment is under destruction. This connotation of pale and fire evokes the reader's sense of alarm and fear of the green environment turning into ashes.

Liebrich accompanies his contention with an image of a man in a suit sticking his head in the sand denotes that the authorities are denying the circumstances of climate changing and therefore, disregarding the issue of climate change. The blue sky scattered with the clouds insinuates that the authorities denial has made them become narrow-minded and thus, avoided their responsibility as protectors of the earth. In an attempt to perceive the issue of climate change as an important matter, Liebrich depicts the dessert to be the outcome of neglecting climate change.

Liebrich questions the reader "surely we can prohibit the media from reporting it all?",where the high modality "surely" implies that there is no doubt in the reader's mind that nobody can prevent the media from broadcasting the results of climate change. Hence, Liebrich engenders the reader to confront the avoidance of climate change and to take action against it.

[Anonymous]

Bumping this up!

[literally lauren]

Liebrich mocks those who resist acknowledging climate change, suggesting such a decision would ultimately do nothing to eradicate the associated dangers. The Kingsville resident’s sombre enumerations of the effects of climate change, such as “corals bleaching” and “bush[es] burning”, confronts the audience with the potential consequences of not taking immediate action. The writer juxtaposes this with the response of those resistant to climate change which was to "stick [their] heads deeper in the sand". In doing so, the writer caustically condemns this attitude, depicting it as illogical and dangerous. To this end, she manoeuvres the reader to perceive ignoring the issue at hand will do nothing to stop it. v good Liebrich punctuates this with the accompanying image of a man with his head in the sand. All that can be seen in the photo is an expanse of sand and the blue sky above; in the near vicinity of the man, the audience may observe no distinctive features or signs of life. The implication is that if the audience choose to adopt a similar stance to climate change, the world as they know it will become the bland and lifeless place observed in the image. great integration and analysis of the visual She further expands on her censure of climate change resistors through the rhetorical question that closes her letter to the editor. Her question ostensibly suggests it is possible to “prohibit the media from reporting” on issues relevant to their audience, despite it being what they were supposed to do. To this end, she appeals to her audience’s reason and logic to highlight just how naïve it was present tense in this case, since you're talking about an effect (though you could also use 'how naive it would be' here since it's a hypothetical, but pres. would be fine) to ignore the issue of climate change. She thus vilifies those who refuse to acknowledge climate change as a relevant issue. Unwilling to be amongst those who are so scathingly censured by Liebrich, the audience is thus inclined to seek to distance themselves from climate change naysayers.  Therefore, she positions the audience to seek to directly confront the issue of climate change instead of paying no heed to it.

Great stuff! From your articulation of the arguments down to your close analysis of techniques, this is really solid. And those sentence structure issues seem to be virtually non-existent now, so well done on addressing those issues.

Efficiency of analysis might be a potential problem later down the track (i.e. if you're writing a paragraph and know you can analyse 7 relevant things really well, do you try and do all 7 even if it bogs down your piece, or do you skimp out and only do 4 knowing you might compromise marks you could've otherwise attained?) so you may find it useful to start plotting out essay outlines to get a feel for this balance.

But definitely keep refining these skills too since it seems like you've made significant improvements just over the past couple of weeks

[literally lauren]

In the letter to the editor, "Please turn off alarm", Liebrich addresses that this should either be 'he addresses the cimate change dilemma' or (preferably) 'he contends that the climate change dilemma should be dealt with' because you can't say he addresses that something should be dealt with' the climate change dilemma should be dealt with and not avoided. He symbolises what do you mean by this? Is he using an alarm as a symbol? Is he associating an alarm with something else? Careful with your word choice here the "alarm" as the warning signs that indicate that climate change is approaching If you're just trying to make some general statements about the arguments for an intro, try not to quote or use language that implies you're analysing. In a sarcastic and later shift to a questioning tone, Liebrich intends the subject of climate change to portray as a serious matter to portray the subject of climate change as a serious matter.

Liebrich begins by pleading "somebody to turn off the alarm", which attempt to encourages the reader to be the person that attentive to these warning signs of climate change. Liebrich use of words "bleaching" and "burning" when describing the corals and bushes suggest that the natural environment is under destruction. This connotation of pale and fire evokes the reader's sense of alarm and fear of the green environment turning into ashes. Great foundations here, though you kind of need one more sentence at the end here to deal with why this is aiding the author's argument! Why does he want them to care for the environment? How would the fear of losing it help him support his contention?

Liebrich's piece is accompanied by accompanies his contention with an image of a man in a suit sticking his head in the sand which denotes that the authorities are denying the circumstances of climate changing and therefore, disregarding the issue of climate change. The blue sky scattered with the clouds insinuates that the authorities denial has made them become narrow-minded and thus, avoided their responsibility as protectors of the earth how so? How are the clouds conveying this idea? You might be right, but you need to show me you're right by taking me through your logic In an attempt to perceive the issue of climate change as an important matter, Liebrich depicts the dessert to be the outcome of neglecting climate change Again, you need to explain how this backs up her point. Why is the desert a bad thing? And how do you know?

Liebrich questions the reader "surely we can prohibit the media from reporting it all?",where the high modality "surely" implies that there is no doubt in the reader's mind that nobody can prevent the media from broadcasting the results of climate change. Hence okay, you're using this word 'hence' here but I'm not following your train of thought; he suggests the media will inevitably talk about climate change, therefore he makes readers confront climate change? The more specific you can be in getting from A to B, the easier it is for your assessor to give you marks Liebrich engenders the reader to confront the avoidance of climate change and to take action against it.

A couple of minor adjustments would make all the difference here:
- you need to spell out the connections between the language the author's using, and the overall intended effect. There were some moments where you did that well, but in other instances, you're making some leaps in logic that are a bit hard to follow. The quality of your explanations is where most of the marks are, so be careful not to just say 'The author says X. This makes readers feel Y' without explaining how and why X leads to Y.
- make sure your sentence structure prioritises clarity. Some of your expression was a little confusing or ungrammatical, and whilst that's not a huge factor in the marking scheme, it could make a fair bit of difference if your grammar prevents your assessor from understanding your point.

Other than that, you're selecting the right kind of evidence to discuss, and your use of metalanguage is very good. Keep at it!

[Anonymous]

In a sardonic, cynical tone, Liebrich ridicules the stance of inactivity and avoidance the government has taken towards important issues in our society such as ‘corals bleaching,... bush burning,... droughts or floods,... and so on’. The feigned disinterested and flippant tone he assumes while listing these disasters implies a lack of care that the government holds towards them. This is exacerbated by the author’s mock pleads for somebody else to ‘please shut off the alarm’, revealing the government’s hesitancy in deal with the issues themselves. These examples serve to evoke emotions of outrage and incredulity in the audience towards the attitude the government has taken in regards to these problems which readers know as critically important, suggesting that they are unfit to lead the country due to this shirking of responsibility. The author reinforces these notions by including an image depicting a man in a business suit - the symbol of formality and importance- with his head buried ‘in the sand’ as he suggests the government to do themselves. This plays off the preconception of children or ostriches with little self- awareness conducting similar behaviour, and thus reveals the illogicality to the government’s actions; as if they believe that the problems will disappear, simply because they are not facing them. However to the audience, the foolishness of this image and conduct is obvious, and only further dislodges the credibility of the government in the public’s opinion. Liebrich additionally extrapolates upon this by insinuating that they are attempting to ‘prohibit the media from reporting on it all’ - hiding their shortcomings and metaphorically burying their heads in the sand- by concentrating on ‘useless coal mining’ and ‘[dismantling] scientific evidence’. To this degree, the author portrays them as dishonest, and subsequently garners further anger from readers, as the government is wasting time and resources on meaningless problems, rather than focussing on important issues such as highlighted previously.

[Anonymous]

That was me above :O
Wow I totally missed the tie-in to climate change that the author was hinting at. If this is the case and my identification of his contention is misinterpreted as a result, is it a total deal breaker?
Also didn't mention how the author tries to sway the audience's opinions regarding climate change.... D: