I would be really really grateful if someone could offer some/any feedback on my language analysis of the 3rd exam's Section C article. It took me 1 h 10 min including some planning time, and I did it as part of the full exam (barely finished the whole exam, so maybe I need to cut down on LA length..). Anyway, it's 1300 words, 1h 10 min, feedback and a mark out of 10 appreciated immensly! If you see any words spelt funny, they're most likely typos, coz I typed this on the train, the words would have most likely been spelt correctly in my handwritten original, sorry about those!
The increasing digitization of communication and the difficulties that arise from the anonymity and accessibility the Internet offers continue to provoke debate in today’s media landscape. In a post on his personal blog ‘White Noise’ social activist and manager of a talkback radio state’s webpage and comments section Vincent Carr alternatively appeals to his reader though alarmism and reason, seeking to make the reader recognize the imminent need to apply some control to the ability of individuals to abuse others online. Comments accompanying the article present both congruent and opposing viewpoints to Carr, offering alternative methods of policing the Internet and questioning the causes and prevalence of the issue itself.
Carr bases a large proportion of his attempt to persuade reader of the need to regulate online comment section on evoking fear and a sense of threat in his readership. From the beginning, Carr assumes a vehemently alarmist tone, with the headline “Who let the trolls out’ accentuating the danger posed by these internet trolls through the use of two question marks, which amplify the concern of the question, as well as asserting Carr’s relatability before his younger and tech-savvy readership who are likely to recognize the irregular use of punctuation as the hallmark of someone who is immersed in the mores and customs of the internet community. The red colour of the text further signals a threat/ Carr’s reference to a “brave new world” which has “taken a turn for the sinister” aims to insinuate that the Internet is dangerous through the connotations of the former phrase, which is associated with dystopianism and thus likely to elicit a sense of unease from educated readers. Carr further seeks to target parent readers especially, through his extensive descriptions of the threats that await his children in this new world. The hyperbolic mention of “psychopathic Killers” and a “bottomless pit of cruelty” seeks to raise the reader’s level of anxiety – Carr then suggests that this violent world cannot be kept from marring children. Drawing an analogy between leaving his children in an unpoliced cyber-world and leaving them alone on a “plane to Chicago”, Carr equates the instinctive fear they feel when thinking about their child alone on a plane with letting them go online with no safeguards. This sense of danger is further accentuated by the image of simplistic male figures with speech bubbles saying ‘Blah’. Their red colour against connotes danger, while the fact that they stretch on into the distance, seeming infinite, elicits a sense of being overwhelmed and attacked by a large group in the reader, making them imagine that this is what their kids would face. The anonymity of the figures dehumanises internet trolls, thereby making them more threatening. Carr accentuates the sinister nature of the online world by juxtaposing it with the gentler mention of “melting ice cream” and “boardgames”, whose innocence seeks to make readers nostalgic and galvanize them into seeking such an idealised family dynamic. Carr thus positions reader to feel the need to establish greater internet controls in order to protect themselves and their children.
The five authors variously seek to establish their crebility, endeavouring to both gain the trust of the reader and discourage them from holding another author’s argument in any esteem. Carr’s authority on the issue is highlighted throughout the article, as he refers to his job as comment screener in order to lend his argument the credibility that first-hand experience brings. Carr’s preliminary assertion of his belief in “free specch” seeks to position him as somebody whose values are compatible with those of his readership, who are likely to value this freedom as they may be listeners of the talkback show whose website Carr edits. Furthermore, Carr asserts his ability to be reasonable through shifting into a considered and tempered tone, recognizing part of his own article as a “rant” and states that he is “aware” of sounding paranoid, to signal that he is aware of the emotional nature of his argument and thereby making readers less likely to dismiss his argument due to its over-use of pathos. Carr’s constant use of the epithet “troll” meanwhile deprives abusive internet commenters of any credibility and seeks to ensure his readership does not wish to associate themselves with such a group. Commenter Jess.123, however, still launches vitriolically into an ad hominem attack on Carr, with her labelling of him as a “cranky old man” insinuating that Carr’s argument is invalid because it is overly guided by emotion and that the author himself is out-dated, likely appealing to a younger audience who are familiar with the stereotype of an older person who is unable to keep up with progress. An opposing view is given by the commenter David_Flannagan, who signals his support for Carr and establishes his own relatability through the use of the informal “mate”. Flannagan also contributes to the undermining of the credibility of abusive online commenters, diminutively saying that they are “just” cowards. User Matthew881 meanwhile cynically seeks to diminish Carr’s argument through the phrase “that’s all well and good”, which deliberately minimises the effect of Carr’s article by suggesting that his opinions are commonplace and don’t probe the issue enough. Thus these varying attitudes both establish their own credibility and undermine others’, seeking to secure reader alignment with their respective contentions.
The causes and solutions of the problem of online abuse are also portrayed differently by the authors, who seek to present their understanding of the issue and solution to it as superior. Carr’s enumeration of questions towards the end of his post and assertion that he is “sure” readers will suggest such things seeks to pre-empt the readers’ response and immediately disqualifying it as overly simplistic as compared to Carr’s argument, which he characterizes as being more globally reasoned and perceptive, with the contrast between the simplistic “rogue morons” and the reasoned “anonymity of the internet” highlighting this. Carr’s accent on anonymity as the cause of the problem is underlined through the image of a keyboard with a ‘comment’ key on it. The close-up nature of the picture, the white background and the lack of a human figure accentuate the impression that it is too easy to anonymously abuse someone online. The fact that there’s a key for ‘comment’ suggests that it is an unthinking action, almost automatic, and would thus be less abusive if commenters had to stop and think about the consequences of their actions. Commenter Don_@ello meanwhile disagrees on the solution proposed by Carr, portraying his own suggestion of ignoring trolls as superior through an appeal to authority and common wisdom. Through the mention of “our parents” telling readers to “ignore the mean kids” Don positions the reader to view his solution as superior because it relies on advice that readers are likely to view as commonplace and be familiar with, as well as perhaps remember using themselves in order to combat abuse. Matthew881 similarly provides a more human focus, suggesting that it is human nature to abuse, but he questions the viability of Carr’s solution, using Carr’s own characterization of the internet as a ‘big scary world’ to portray his argument as overly simplistic and thus elevate Matthew’s own in the eyes of the reader. These authors thus each propose differing solutions to the problem of internet abuse, seeking to denigrate alternative opinions.
Vincent Carr’s blog post about the need to police the internet in order to minimise online abuse is one whose attempts to convince the reader rely on both reason and fear. The varying comments the post attracted each seek to similarly assert their own credibility and galvanize the reader into espousing their points of view. Evidently, these authors endeavour to persuade their readers of their solutions to the issue of online abuse being superior through both emotions and logic.
Home
Help
Search
Login
