2019 AA Club - Week 2

[MissSmiley]

Hope everyone's having a relaxing and productive holiday!

Image as well (there's a link below) this week for those who want to give their first shot at integrating visual analysis before school formally starts!

Background:

A Saudi teenager, Rhaf Mohammed al-Qunun who fled her family alleging abuse and got stranded at a Bangkok airport, has arrived in Canada after being granted asylum there. Her visa to come to Australia was cancelled.

TITLE of letter to the editor : Rhaf Mohammed al-Qunun: Canada the land of the fair go, not Australia
DATE : 14th January 2019
SOURCE : https://www.theage.com.au/national/rahaf-mohammed-alqunun-canada-the-land-of-the-fair-go-not-australia-20190113-h1a0ui.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We think of ourselves as the land of the fair go, where courage and principle are admired, and where the virtue of kindness to those in need or danger is practised. Along comes an incredibly brave 18-year-old Saudi girl who says she was in fear for her life from a violent patriarchal family and country, where her future (if she is not killed) will effectively be slavery.

Our political response? An unconvincing "we'll consider your refugee claim". Our two most prominent politicians, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, are mysteriously quiet. Having spent so much time courting the anti-immigration voter base, they clearly don't know what to do. So instead of a response in line with our supposed national characteristics and ethics; they stick their heads in the sand.

Along comes Canada. They look at this girl and see her courage and a future where she is a real asset to their country. They see as well that acknowledging her courage and accepting her plea for refuge affirms what Canada stands for.

Which country is really the land of the fair go?

Tony Roberts, Wandin North

Image link: https://imgur.com/LyCApg2

[Anonymous]

Remember, this piece is short and sweet so keep your analysis short and sweet as well! If I were to approach this under exam conditions, I'd just do one reasonably sized body paragraph with the contention "Roberts argues that Australian politicians have acted against national values", including some comments on the visual in my analysis.

[Anonymous]

I really struggled with this in general, because I've rarely never analysed letters to the editor at school (always opinion pieces and commentaries lol) and also I'm still really confused as to what the cartoon represents symbolically, so bear with me if my piece doesn't make sense  ! Could someone give me an idea of their personal interpretations of the image? Visual analysis has always been something I struggle with so I'd also appreciate any pointers/tips haha. Also when referring to the text in your piece, do you write 'letter to the editor' out in full every time or can you say 'letter'? 'article'? or just 'text'? (much confus)

---

Tony Roberts, in a letter to the editor titled "Rhaf Mohammed al-Qunun: Canada the land of fair go, not Australia" refers to the recent case of a woman from Saudi Arabia's bid for asylum after fleeing from her allegedly abusive family. The text, published in The Age (14/01/19) contends that by not granting the woman, al-Qunun, the right to come to Australia as a refugee, the Australian government is abandoning its self-proclaimed values, values which Canada has proven to uphold. Employing a reasonable and measured tone, Roberts addresses the Australian public and the Australian government primarily.

Roberts argues that Australia proclaims to have values that we don't fulfil. He juxtaposes our claim that Australia is a place for those in danger to receive kindness, with the violent situation of the Saudi woman who he describes as being in fear for her life. In doing so, he aims to emphasise the irony of our beliefs versus our actions, by pointing out our lack of kindness towards al-Qunun, someone in danger, leading to readers questioning Australia's integrity as a country. In a visualisation representing Australian politicians' inaction on this matter, a steering wheel, purportedly representing Australia's integrity and main values, is depicted as breaking under the pull of politicians. Such a cartoon is aimed at criticizing Australia's government and how they represent Australia to the wider world, as exemplified by the breaking down of the steering wheel. Furthermore, the use of the idiomatic expression "stick[ing] their heads in the sand" is another critique of Morrison and Dutton's actions of putting their political ambitions ahead through playing up to the anti-immigration voter base, instead of trying to embody Australia's values. As such, the writer maintains that Australia is being let down by politicians who are choosing to disregard Australia's established values, and thus, undermining our national identity.

In the concluding lines of this text, Roberts uses exclusive language "they" when referring to Canada as opposed to the inclusive "our" he used previously to describe Australians. This clearly outlines the distinction between Canada and Australia, prompting readers to feel alienated from Canada, which, despite showing the same values as Australia, is depicted as being more trustworthy through the writers' praise for actually upholding these values. The final line, a rhetorical question, is an attempt by Roberts to cause readers to question our self-described label as "land of fair go" and leave them with lingering doubt as to our country's identity, and the capability of our politicians to represent us as a country.

[Anonymous]

Whoopsies didn't mean to post anonymously (thought I checked the box but I guess I didn't )

[peachxmh]

Okay I'm legitimately sorry for making the same mistake twice - my brain is confuddled 

[addict]

Remember, this piece is short and sweet so keep your analysis short and sweet as well! If I were to approach this under exam conditions, I'd just do one reasonably sized body paragraph with the contention "Roberts argues that Australian politicians have acted against national values", including some comments on the visual in my analysis.

Didn't mean to post anonymously! Can we get rid of the default anonymous thing?

[ngu0038]

This is only an introduction and two body paragraphs:


In a letter to the editor, Tony Roberts questions whether Australia has followed their national values after a Saudi teenager has been denied asylum in a country of “fair go.” Whilst being in an authoritative tone, Roberts aims to make Australian citizens start recognising the fault in Australia’s ability to give people the chance that they need. An image has also been included to accompany the writer in an attempt to show Australia’s lack of leadership skills.

Robert argues that the leaders of Australia have failed to recognise their country’s values. He contends this by using the quote “we’ll consider your refugee claim” from one of the political responses regarding the issue. The idea that the country’s politicians have verbally claimed this but failed to execute it implies a false sense of hope into readers, particularly Australian citizens, in Australia’s capabilities to give people a fair go in living. This attempts to make them feel like they need to show awareness for the issue and to make Australia grant asylum to people who need it. Additionally, Robert includes a relative analysis between Australia and Canada’s acceptance of the Saudi teenager. Mentioning that Canada has acknowledged “her courage” and “her plea for refuge affirms” further depicts Australia incapability to allow immigration, which thus causes the reader to understand that Australia’s current national values are a few steps behind from others across the world.

Whilst Robert argues in a firm tone, an image included in the centre of the piece is used to convey an idea to readers about Australia’s inadequacy to follow their nationally established policies. The right half of the image causes the readers to feel as if the country’s “leadership” skills aren’t going anywhere in towards what was admired. This is due to the ropes tied onto the boat’s wheel which shows a lack of control in changing directions, implying that the government is highly unlikely to change or take ethical action in regards to the issue. Furthermore, the two parts of the image being placed adjacent to each other shows the degeneration of the country’s leadership skills, where it is first seen on the left as freedom and open-minded, which then turns into a cruise with no control only to show that the politicians are only facing towards a negative direction.

[Anonymous]

An introduction and one very long body paragraph (oops, but I thought it would just be good to get something written and out there rather than nothing). 

In advance, thanks for any advice/feedback!!! 

Recently, a young Saudi Arabian girl fled her allegedly abusive family and eventually arrived in Canada after being denied asylum in Australia. Tony Roberts’ letter to the editor, titled “Rhaf Mohammed al-Qunun: Canada the land of fair go, not Australia,” harshly criticises this political response, or lack thereof, contending that Australia’s failure to provide asylum is a blatant act of hypocrisy against our national values.

Adopting a disappointed tone, Roberts condemns the Australian government’s decision to cancel the “incredibly brave” girl’s visa, asserting that this does not align with “national characteristics or ethics.” Immediately, Roberts engenders a sense of unity between himself and readers through the use of inclusive language, stating “[w]e think of ourselves as the land of fair go.” Moreover, through the use of the word “think,” Roberts elicits doubt in readers, implying that the impression of Australia as a place where “courage… [is] admired” and “kindness…is practiced” is perhaps untrue. Instead, Roberts highlights how, despite being in “fear for her life,” the teenage girl was turned away from Australia while “our two most prominent politicians, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, are mysteriously quiet.” Here, readers are positioned to feel ashamed of their representative’s inaction, especially as Roberts underscores that their silence left a girl in fear of a “violent patriarchal family,” conjuring a disturbing and unsettling image. In this way, Roberts highlights the disparity between what the public believes Australia’s values to be, and what values are actually reflected through our government’s decisions.

This is further cemented through the image, titled “Leadership,” accompanying the article. On one hand, there is a ship’s steering wheel able to easily move if need be, and on the other, there is a steering wheel being pulled in all different directions by ropes, with screws and springs breaking off. This is representative our current political climate, where, in favour of pushing their own political agenda such as the “anti-immigration voter base,” Morrison and Dutton are abandoning national values, causing the direction of leadership to be strained, dangerously heading towards an iceberg. Here, Roberts evokes fear within readers, reminding them that they are also directed by these politicians, whose actions therefore reflect upon everyone. Furthermore, his description of the same politicians as “stick[ing] their heads in the sand,” serves to emphasise to readers how, through doing nothing, the government has disregarded the core values of acceptance and kindness integral to Australia’s identity. Instead, he extols Canada as being the “land of the fair go,” for granting asylum to this girl, leaving readers questioning which country really upholds its national ethics.

[Anonymous]

^^ sorry the above was meant to be one paragraph, not split into two.

[MissSmiley]

This is only an introduction and two body paragraphs:


In a letter to the editor, Tony Roberts questions whether Australia has followed their national values after a Saudi teenager has been denied asylum in a country of “fair go.” Whilst being in Using an authoritative tone, Roberts aims to make Australian citizens start recognising the fault in Australia’s ability to give people the chance that they need. Rather than saying 'aims to...' in the intro itself, you could just say Robert contends that...and perhaps...Australia has acted our humanitarian values and has wrongly denied asylum or just something like that. An image has also been included to accompany the writer in an attempt to show Australia’s lack of leadership skills.Don't need to say this in an intro, unless the image is a separate text. Overall though, nice and short, succinct intro. But make sure you're not forgetting to mention the target audience!

Robert argues that the leaders of Australia have failed to recognise uphold? their country’s values. He contends this by using the quote “we’ll consider your refugee claim” Just to make this stronger, you could say "Expressing a quoted political response: “we’ll consider your refugee claim” with derision, Roberts aims to demonstrate how the country's politicians have created a false sense of hope, by not executing this response and the fair go values associated with it...or something like that. Do you see how I've added the tone and also combined the 'how' and the 'why' - reader effect in one sentence? Just trying to give you other ways to experiment!
from one of the political responses regarding the issue. The idea that the country’s politicians have verbally claimed this but failed to execute it implies a false sense of hope into readers, particularly Australian citizens, in Australia’s capabilities to give people a fair go in living. This attempts to make them feel like they need to show awareness for the issue and to make Australia grant asylum to people who need it If 'them' is the readership, then the common public can't possibly make Australia grant asylum. So just your point about raising awareness is good, and to make your reader effect stronger, you could say something like: "As a result, Australians who have an interest in humanitarian issues (see how I'm being really specific with my target audience as well), are likely to lose their trust on Australian politicians and instead praise and look up to Canada's welcoming grant. or something like that Additionally, Robert includes a relative analysis between Australia and Canada’s acceptance of the Saudi teenager. Mentioning that Canada has acknowledged “her courage” and “her plea for refuge affirms” further depicts Australia incapability to allow immigration, which thus causes the reader to understand that Australia’s current national values are a few steps behind from others across the world. Does it reflect Australia's incapability or does it immensely praise Canada's commitment to righteous humanitarian values? Also, you can analyse the emotive language and the sentiments associated with "courage" and "plea" and this is to further praise Canada. Really good you're zoning in on really specific evidence, but make sure to also look at the other side of the reader effect.

Whilst Robert argues in a firm tone, Could you say "Similar to the authoritative nature of Robert's letter...an image included in the centre of the piece is used to convey an idea to readers about Australia’s inadequacy to follow their nationally established policies. The right half of the image causes the readers to feel as if the country’s “leadership” skills aren’t going anywhere in towards what was admired. This is due to the ropes tied onto the boat’s wheel which shows a lack of control in changing directions, implying that the government is highly unlikely to change or take ethical action in regards to the issue. Furthermore, the two parts of the image being placed adjacent to each other shows the degeneration of the country’s Australia's leadership skills, where it is first seen on the left as freedom and open-minded, which then turns into a cruise with no control only to show that the politicians are only facing towards a negative direction. This image analysis is really excellent! Great original insight! The quality of your visual analysis will be elevated though if you include a reader effect statement and just summarise again how the readership is thus more likely to respect Canada's more dignified approach to allow the Saudi teenager to enter. At the same time, Australian politicians are denounced and challenged to question whether they are really upholding fairness as per our national values.

Hi ngu0038!

Great job with your analysis! I really enjoyed reading your visual analysis especially, because of its originality and great insight! Well done!
You're also picking up on specific pieces of evidence which is great, but try and make a goal for next time to also analyse the connotations behind some words that authors use! Analysing the connotations will also help you look at the other side of the reader effect and you'll notice how you can be really specific with the stakeholders in the issue!
Don't forget to mention the target audience in the intro as well! Keep mentioning how each group in the audience are likely to feel and act when they read the language, hear the tone and visualise the author's expressions!
Also, a tip, if a writer quotes something, like the political response in this case, that can literally be called as a technique where you write "By using quotation marks to write the politicians' response, the author expresses disapproval..etc" Sometimes quotation marks often mean the author trying to be sarcastic, mocking, or maybe they're disappointed like in this case.
(Just something to elevate the quality of your analysis! Assessors love this!
Overall, a fantastic piece of analysis before Year 12 formally begins! 
Looking forward to reading more of your AA writing!

[Anonymous]

An introduction and one very long body paragraph (oops, but I thought it would just be good to get something written and out there rather than nothing). 

In advance, thanks for any advice/feedback!!! 

Recently, a young Saudi Arabian girl fled her allegedly abusive family and eventually arrived in Canada after being denied asylum in Australia. Tony Roberts’ letter to the editor, titled “Rhaf Mohammed al-Qunun: Canada the land of fair go, not Australia,” harshly criticises this Australia's political response, or lack thereof, contending that Australia’s failure to provide asylum is a blatant act of hypocrisy against our national values. Really great summary of the contention! Nice short intro, but make sure you're not forgetting to mention the target audience!

Adopting a disappointed tone, Roberts condemns the Australian government’s decision to cancel the “incredibly brave” girl’s visa, asserting that this does not align with “national characteristics or ethics.” Immediately, From the outset itself, this is great that you're already talking about argument construction! Roberts reinforces engenders a sense of unity and nationalistic righteousness between himself and Australian readers through the use of inclusive language, stating “[w]e think of ourselves as the land of fair go.” However, through the use of the word “think,” Roberts elicits doubt in readers, implying that the impression of Australia as a place where “courage… [is] admired” and “kindness…is practiced” is perhaps untrue and superficial. This is such a great point! I've just added in some words, just to experiment with the flow of your writing! Instead, Roberts highlights how, despite being in “fear for her life,” the teenage girl was turned away from Australia while “our two most prominent politicians, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, are mysteriously quiet.” Rather than quoting this whole sentence from the text, maybe you could leave this out or if you really wanted to, you could analyse the tone of 'mysteriously quiet.' Here, readers are positioned to feel ashamed of their representative’s remember the apostrophe rule with plurals - representatives' inaction, especially as Roberts underscores that their silence left a girl in fear of a “violent patriarchal family,” conjuring a disturbing and unsettling image. Great point! To even further analyse reader effect, you could say how this unsettling imagery aims to instill guilt within politicians' mind and further impel readers who are interested in humanitarian issues to criticise the government's decision. In this way, Roberts highlights the disparity between what the public believes Australia’s values to be, and what values are actually reflected through our government’s decisions.

This is further cemented I love it how you're trying really hard to use new analytical verbs, but 'to cement' here sounds a bit awkward, although you're trying to say 'to establish.' So, how about I suggest another complex analytical verb?   - to corroborate. That means to support. So you can say Robert's argument is corroborated by the image...through the image, titled “Leadership,” accompanying the article. On one hand, there is a ship’s steering wheel able to easily move if need be, and on the other, there is a steering wheel being pulled in all different directions by ropes, with screws and springs breaking off. This is representative our current political climate, where, in favour of pushing their own political agenda such as the “anti-immigration voter base,” Morrison and Dutton are abandoning national values, causing the direction of leadership to be strained, dangerously heading towards an iceberg. This visual analysis is really excellent! Great job!! You can then compare Canada's more welcoming approach as symbolised by the Here, Roberts evokes fear within readers do you think the other group in the readership could also be other asylum seekers who are trying to come to Australia? so how about evokes fear in their minds? which would again bring down the reputation of Australia? , reminding them that they are also directed by these politicians, whose actions therefore reflect upon everyone. Furthermore, his description of the same politicians as “stick[ing] their heads in the sand,” [/b]name this technique as an idiom! serves to emphasise to readers how, through doing nothing, the government has disregarded the core values of acceptance and kindness integral to Australia’s identity. you could also say how the government is negligent and to some extent trying to cover up their mistake.  Instead, he extols great vocab!! Canada as being the “land of the fair go,” for granting asylum to this girl, leaving readers questioning which country really upholds its national ethics.

Hi there!

Great work with this analysis! You've really given your best shot at coming up with new analytical synonyms for important verbs and in some places your succinct writing was really great to read! Great start before school!

I'm just thinking, for your next practice, maybe you could set a goal of thinking really carefully and comprehensively about the target audience. This has to be done in your 5 mins of planning (exam conditions) and if you start from now, you'll be able to do this really efficiently come exam time!
The reason I'm suggesting you do this before starting to write is that in some places you could easily be more specific with who is it that the author is targeting in the readership. In this case, yes it is the Australian government and the public, but go a bit deeper and you could say members in the public who are interested in refuge and asylum humanitarian issues! Or even members in the Australian population who came from Canada! If you go deeper into analysing the impact on a specific group of the target audience that means you're really zooming in, if you like, on the fine analysis! Assessors love this and you'll definitely be rewarded! So just zoom in and zoom out haha with your target audience. Zoom in on a specific group and zoom out to analyse the effect on a broader national, state scale, etc.
Doing this in your planning stage means you have a checklist ready of target audience groups and then you'll automatically think of even more insightful reader effect! Your writing will be even more original and new, which is exactly what assessors like!

But overall, really great job and setting small goals like this can really push you to get that A+ !
Really keen to read to your next piece of AA!! 

[MissSmiley]

Really sorry, just letting you know, the above piece of feedback was from me!
Silly me, forgot to tick the box! 

[MissSmiley]

I really struggled with this in general, because I've rarely never analysed letters to the editor at school (always opinion pieces and commentaries lol) and also I'm still really confused as to what the cartoon represents symbolically, so bear with me if my piece doesn't make sense  ! Could someone give me an idea of their personal interpretations of the image? Visual analysis has always been something I struggle with so I'd also appreciate any pointers/tips haha. Consider the following questions:
   What can you see in the image? What persuasive techniques are used? 
How does the image support the author’s contention? 

When analysing images you could explore the intended effect behind the illustrators' use of (SPFBLTS):
S – Size
P – Positioning
F – Facial Expressions
B – Body Language
L – Lighting
T – Text
S – Symbols
 You should also think about other types of visuals:
The formatting:-
dot points, letter, report
The framing:- computer blog
Logos / Headings
Changes in font size
    Also when referring to the text in your piece, do you write 'letter to the editor' out in full every time or can you say 'letter'? 'article'? or just 'text'? You could vary it between letter to the editor, letter and piece. (much confus)

---

Tony Roberts, in a letter to the editor titled "Rhaf Mohammed al-Qunun: Canada the land of fair go, not Australia" refers to the recent case of a woman from Saudi Arabia's bid for asylum after fleeing from her allegedly abusive family. Just to be succinct with your intros, the first line can be really simple and start off with "in discussion of the recent case....Tony Roberts submits a letter to the editor and using a __ tone, he contends that...." There you have 3 things in one sentence! Then you can continue with target audience. The text, published in The Age (14/01/19) contends the text doesn't contend, but the author contends that by not granting the woman, al-Qunun, the right to come to Australia as a refugee, the Australian government is abandoning its self-proclaimed values, values which Canada has proven to uphold. Employing a reasonable and measured tone, perhaps an indignant tone? Because he does seem angry and disappointed Roberts addresses the Australian public and the Australian government primarily. Overall, your intro has all the parts, but like I said before, try and make it more succinct

Roberts argues that Australia proclaims to have values that we don't fulfill. He juxtaposes somehow I think you do this with similar things. So how about: he establishes a contradiction by firstly outlining our claim of how Australia is a welcoming place for those in danger to receive kindness, with the violent situation of the Saudi woman who he describes as being in fear for her life. In doing so, he aims to emphasise the irony of our beliefs versus our actions, by pointing out our lack of kindness towards al-Qunun, someone in danger, leading to readers questioning Australia's integrity as a country. Really great synthesis of authorial intent and reader effect! In a visualisation visual representing Australian politicians' inaction on this matter, could you say 'a visual symbolising the difference between Australia's and Canada's humanitarian treatment? a steering wheel, purportedly representing Australia's integrity and main values, is depicted as breaking under the pull of politicians. Such a cartoon is aimed at criticizing Australia's government and how they represent Australia to the wider world, as exemplified by the breaking down of the steering wheel. Yeah great start to your visual analysis! Maybe go a bit deeper into how every rope from the steering wheel is not shown an end point. This could symbolise how politicians are perhaps covering up their inactions as well!  Furthermore, the use of the idiomatic expression it's fantastic how you're naming the technique specifically! "stick[ing] their heads in the sand" is another critique of Morrison and Dutton's actions of putting their political ambitions ahead through playing up to the anti-immigration voter base, instead of trying to embody Australia's values. As such, the writer maintains that Australia is being let down by politicians who are choosing to disregard Australia's established values, and thus, undermining our national identity. How are we meant to feel? This is an important part of reader effect! But, I can really see a big improvement in your linking sentences now!! You've summarised the whole contention really well and your first line of this para and this last line make sense! Great work! 

Remember, just a small sentence to summarise the next part of the contention will be great here! For example, Roberts seeks to delineate a contrast between Australia's inability to reflect righteous national values and Canada's welcoming approach when handling asylum seekers. In the concluding lines of this text, Roberts uses exclusive language "they" when referring to Canada as opposed to the inclusive "our" good pickup, but the reader effect you've attached to this doesn't make sense. Could you say how the distinction is done in an attempt to make Australian politicians feel shameful? he used previously to describe Australians. This clearly outlines the distinction between Canada and Australia, prompting who? readers to feel alienated from Canada but the Australian readership is already different from the Canadian one! They wouldn't feel alienated., which, despite showing the same values as Australia, is depicted as being more trustworthy through the writers' praise for actually upholding these values. The final line, a rhetorical question, is an attempt by Roberts to cause readers to question our self-described label as "land of fair go" and leave them with lingering doubt as to our country's identity, and the capability of our politicians to represent us as a country which purports itself to be righteous. just added this on!

Hi peachxmh!

I can already see you've grasped the linking sentence tips I gave you last week and you're really working hard towards the goal of selecting the best pieces of evidence and analysing those! This is a fantastic jump forwards from your previous one! 

I would have liked to read some more deeper level analysis of reader effect though, and for this, you need to identify all stakeholders in the target audience! See my piece of feedback for the above practice for more on suggestions of specific groups in the target audience.
Your writing about the reader effect will be further enhanced if you try and step into the shoes of other groups in the target audience and then analyse how they would feel reading the writer's language.
I really liked how you're naming specifically the technique which is excellent!
Also, just to give you a tip about reader effect, often thinking about the opposite emotions can help you create a thread of reader effect statements.
For example, if the Australian government is made to feel guilty, then the Canadian government is praised. --> a thread from this --> Asylum seekers are more likely to view Canada as more welcoming than Australia. (this is just an example)
So try and form these threads to analyse reader effect and this will make your writing even more insightful!

Really great work!!