This was a practice comparative language analysis (two articles, one cartoon) completed in February on the issue of public transport. It received a 19/20, and I got 20/20 on the actual SAC on another topic.
The early months of 2009 were a bleak time for our public transport system- with Ms Kosky as Minister for Transport, the government and Connex receiving mass scrutiny and criticism from commuters and the media alike for an array of blunders affecting Melburnians. Arising from the media frenzy came Graham Currie’s opinionative article (The Age 01/02/09), calmly and rationally asserting to all Melbournians that responsibility should be placed on the “ failure of infrastructure” that which “level-headed planning” could possibly amend.
Currie initially gains the reader’s attention with his colloquial headline, rationalising that “cool heads [are] required” before “we blow our stacks and really go off the rails”. Here, Currie promulgates the notion that we must “cool” down by providing a parallel, his over-zealous choice of phrase resembling our media’s tendency to “blow [their] stacks” and indeed, issues out of proportion. This is cogent in instilling doubt in the reader as to the validity of the reports pertaining to the transport system they have been exposed to, thereby allowing us to be more receptive his subsequent arguments. Currie then highlights the “political parties blaming each other, government blaming the operator and the operator blaming train drivers”, a continual diversion of responsibility ensuring the amelioration of our system is never obtained. The cumulative impact is an evocation of reader exasperation with these respective entities, due to their incapability to unify thus address the more pertinent issue of why the heat is affecting our trains so adversely. As if anticipating the reader’s demand for an answer to the aforementioned question, Currie supplies his “very simple” riposte that “Melbourne trains are not designed to work at high temperatures and they never have been”. In less then 20 words, Currie simplifies a seemingly complex issue by clearly and logically framing the reason for our ineffective system, which serves to enhance his reasonability and credibility to the reader as well as undermine the bodies whose responsibility it is to provide such logic. Moreover, Currie inclusively concedes that “most readers might consider this an unreasonable situation” yet follows this with the assertion that “it is a fact nonetheless” that our trains are not made to work in extreme weather, diverting and alleviating the reader’s indignation with the oft-blamed entities by underscoring that it is the actual trains themselves that are not able to function.
Currie then generalises that “governments of all persuasions have… led to a railway that won’t run in heat”, yet dogmatically declares that “even the world’s best rail operator couldn’t reliably run trains not designed for heat”. Here, Currie positions the reader to retract their erroneous blame on Connex/Lynne Kosky by putting our system on a global scale, highlighting that an expectation for trains to run reliably-when they are not made to, is ‘universally’ flawed. Currie then details the “100 million plus investment” necessary to “run trains” “over 40 degrees”, posing “[if] it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to get trains to run reliably on…one day a year?”. Subsequently, there is an appeal to the reader’s hip pocket nerve that triggers an instilment of doubt pertaining to the reforms so widely demanded, as they may absorb an exorbitant amount of taxes for just “one day”. However, Currie concedes that “the case for upgrading is probably getting better” as “ we are now experiencing more than one day a year at [over 40 degrees]” due to climate change. Currie ensures his reasonability is retained with this evenhanded statement, the inclusive language permeating all readers in the increasing temperature “we are now experiencing”, yet his calm reasoning reduces the reader’s usual resentment with the system. Furthermore, Currie confirms consonantly that “rail ridership has skyrocketed”, then demands whether it “would be better to have new services to an expanded group of users all year or heat-resistant trains on existing services for about one day a year?”. The juxtaposition of “all year” and “one day a year” is cogent in accentuating the irrationality for “heat resistant trains”, providing an example of investment that could consistently ameliorate each commuter’s use of the train network every day. This reasoning is promulgated effectively to the reader, evoking a partiality towards the practical “all year” option.
Towards the denouement of the article, Graham puts forth his solution to commuters, asserting “to cool it” and “to cope, they can plan ahead, plan earlier, allow more time for trips and prepare for delays”. These simplistic yet optimistic suggestions appease the reader, as there is an inference that if they follow these suggestions “there [might] a relief in sight”.
Starkly contrasting Currie’s hopefulness for the future is the defeatist and bitter Letter to the Editor by Sue Kitson (The Age 23/03/09), contending that the “daily experiences of frequent users” of public transport, such as herself, have eventuated in her “giv[ing] up” entirely on trains as a mode of transportation. Her pessimism is apparent to her Melburnian audience even from the title “ That’s it. I give up”, the contraction and sombre tone sparking the reader’s curiosity as to the contents of the article.
Kitson begins by establishing her credentials “ as a yearly Met ticket holder for several years”, her reliability and authority on the contentious issue recognised by the reader by her frequent commuting. Kitson then creates the imagery of her “state of Zen when standing on train platforms, only demonstrating the odd public outburst when it got all too much to bear”. The reference to a “state of Zen” carries the inference that train platforms are always chaotic, resulting in a conscious effort by commuters, such as Kitson, to reach a state of calm to inhibit an “odd public outburst”. Also, it suggests that these times of chaos are so frequent that this “state of Zen” was easily achieved. Thereby there is an evocation of empathy for the commuters exposed to such consistently unsatisfactory conditions on these train platforms. The loaded language pertaining to the “impossible” summarisation of the “too many incidents” that frequent users are exposed to serves to evoke feelings of frustration in the reader, that these negative incidents are becoming almost innumerable. Moreover, does Kitson list some frequent occurrences, gloomy imagery mounting till “ [it’s]just the next scheduled train morphing into the missing one”. In this imagery Kitson effectively frames the hopelessness and predictability of our system, eliciting anger that this cruel cycle continually repeats without government or Connex’s intervention.
There is a tonal shift as Kitson to one of more contemptuousness as she asserts that she “cannot wait” to stop using the train, “forced to drive…to get to work on time” as she “cannot trust.. Public transport”. Here, Kitson simultaneously evokes sympathy as to her plight to getting to work on time as well as propagates her condemnation of public transportation to the reader through the use of negative words such as “cannot” and “forced”. Kitson then places direct responsibility on Minister Kosky and Connex, stating that she “gave it [her] best shot” but “[they] have broken [her]”, the placement of responsibility on these two bodies ensuring, most effectively, the reader’s most pejorative denunciation of their actions, or inaction.
Similarly, Mark Knight’s political cartoon (Herald Sun 30/01/2009), mockingly contends that the “heat is on” for Lynne Kosky to fix our failing public transport system. His audience is clearly depicted in the emotional commuters in the foreground of the cartoon, some dejected some livid, but nevertheless Melburnians “unhappy” with Lynne Kosky’s efforts as Minister for Transport.
A lady stands the bottom left hand corner the frame; head down, literally and figuratively unable to look at the utter chaos that is our train system. Here, Knight underscores the “train wreck” that our system has become, evoking exasperation that it continues to worsen to a stage until we cannot bear to even “look” at it anymore, without any government intervention. Another commuter, a male, stands in bottom right hand corner, contemptuously turning to stare at Ms Kosky. This disdain is propagated to reader, a feeling of affinity with the man ensuing, reassuring the reader their feelings are echoed throughout the state. Moreover, all three commuters stand ironically, their backs to the isolated “customer service” desk containing Lynne Kosky, symbolic of a government unable to “reach out” to their public. In this instance Knight accentuates the alienation felt by all Melburnians as their demands continue to be ignored. Thereby, this elicits righteous indignation by appealing to the reader’s sense of entitlement to a functional government.
Inside her insular bubble, Ms Kosky sits rigidly, analogous for months on inaction to fix our transport woes. Here, Knight ensures the reader’s condemnation of such stagnancy of our government, encouraging them to be conducive to reversing our government’s inertia. Kosky herself is depicted in dark shading, her sunken eyes and gloomy attire exemplifying, symbolically, a government overwhelmed by the pressure it is under. This depiction results in the evocation of pity towards the government, simultaneously enhancing Knight’s even-handedness. On the wall of the secluded desk, is a thermometer that has reached the highest temperature and has burst, mercury flowing, symbolic of a situation that has reached “boiling point”. This accentuates the severity of the situation to the reader, inciting our anger that it has continued escalate to such a “temperature”. Whilst metaphorical fans attempt to “cool” the situation, Knight’s speech bubble in the right hand corner sarcastically imparts, “but it’s a dry heat” to Kosky, who is feeling the heat, irrespective of whether it is “dry” or not. Knight’s denigrating remark is reminiscent of various government excuses and actions that did not detract from the fact the people were suffering due to an dysfunctional train system. Thereby, Knight promulgates the lack of empathy held for Kosky to the reader, by reminding the reader of times when the government has tried to make light of our situation.
The platforms in the peripheral of the cartoon extend into the distance, filled with faceless masses waiting for a functioning train. Knight reminds us of the “long-reaching” affects of our failing system, reaching to the suburbs and to all the public, a warning which urges the reader to place direct responsibility on Lynne Kosky and the government to start to preform their duty.
Whilst Currie reasonably avows that “cool heads” are needed for a long term solution to our public transportation, Kitson defeatedly contends that she, as a frequent commuter, is giving up on transport system due to her daily negative experiences. Likewise, Knight asserts that it is at “boiling point” for Lynne Kosky to ameliorate the transport system, however, his approach is far more mocking of the government.
Whilst Kitson’s imagery of ‘not enough room to squeeze in until the third train” simultaneously evokes the reader’s sympathy and exasperation with such sub-par conditions, Currie’s use of imagery to canvass “ thousands of hot, angry passengers”, serves to engender the reader’s more direct feelings of anger. Similarly, Knight’s literal imagery of commuters encourages the reader to emulate their feelings of contemptuousness and dejection with the train system. Currie provides a solution to our transport woes by simplistically and inclusively avowing “it’s time to cool it” that is similar to Knight’s inference that if the government “cools down” with the symbolic “fans”, they will be able to preform their duty. This starkly contrasts the resolution put forth by Kitson, to “give up”, a despondent attitude that is propagated cogently to the reader, supported with dreary imagery throughout the article. Currie’s figurative language “screaming for heads to roll” highlights the public’s negative tendency to beseech retribution when they are wronged aims to embarrass the reader for such conduct, starkly contrasting Kitson’s figurative statement that Minister Kosky and Connex “have broken [her]”, the negative connotations with the word “broken” ensuring the reader perceives the aforementioned two bodies as villainous. However Knight’s use of figurative language in the label “the hottest place on Melbourne” does not seek to place blame, instead accentuates the ramifications of the situation to the reader - an extremely strained relationship between commuters and the government that is “boiling” hot.
Knight’s political cartoon attempts to strengthen the unanimous resentment towards Lynne Kosky in his pitiful depiction of her, evoking contempt and anger towards her and her government. However, Currie’s opinionative article seeks to calm the reader’s indignation with the system, amongst the media “fury” pertaining to the issue . Contrastingly, Kitson intends to incite a felling of hopelessness and defeat towards the train system, creating an overall cynicism towards the government’s inertia in the issue.