Hey..
Sorry this is a lil late
See below for some corrections .. they are only suggestions so feel free to ignore them!
It was a great analysis overall!!
Also, I'm kinda new to this so I'm not sure if the formatting of my corrections is right..?!
WHALING
In response to recent protests to Whaling in Japan, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have proposed an international moratorium on commercial whaling. The Age’s editorial piece titled, “Japan’s whaling must end entirely,”
uses an assertive manner to position its audience of conservationists to perceiveJapan's recommenc
ing of whaling in Australian waters
as being a ‘deeply regrettable move’ and ‘retrograde’, and must end entirely through Tony Abbott's resolution. In addition, the cartoon by Mark Knight condemns Japan in a satirical yet deeply empathetic tone
[In a cartoon, the atmosphere the cartoonist creates is often a worthwhile consideration] that the country's ‘Whale Research’ and scientific hunts are indeed not for reasonable endeavors and must be acknowledged for what it truly is. Instead, Constance L insightfully suggests in his letter to the editor that Japan’s approach to whaling is expedient, however the very form of whaling can be beneficial in accordance with justifiable motives.
Engaging an audience of social reformers and conservationists, The Age postulates that Japan's motion of whaling is indeed deplorable and disappointing. Within the Editorial, the editor mentions the diplomatic complaints and ‘dangerous protest stunts’ that were required for Japan’s whalings to be ‘identified’ which attempts to convey the extreme measures required for Japan’s ‘deception’ to be unveiled, inviting readers to reflect on their preconceived views towards whaling and to consider its impact on the population. Criticizing and attacking Japan’s proposition, The Age associates
[could possibly uses 'juxtaposes'] Japan’s ‘noble scientific endeavor’
with ‘industrial enterprise’,
an association that is built upon in their reference to ‘the sheer scale of the killing’ of minke whales which compels the audience to concede the vast amount of wide spread damage on whales and reflect on the impacts of Japan’s whale killing. Moreover, the editor states that the ‘decision’ for ‘the program to cease immediately’ is a ‘victory for common sense’, which denotes that Japan opposes the common sense shared by the majority of people for their egoistic whale killing activities, thus demoting them as an aberration, further positioning readers to develop a greater understanding of Japan's deplorable activities.
Adopting a more serious tone, the editor opts for Mr Abbott to put an end to Japan’s whaling ‘entirely’. Highlighting that whales were ‘harvested’, stating figures of ‘10,000 whales’, the editor challenges Prime Minister Mr Abbott to enunciate disagreement with Japan's propositions in which he threatens Abbott’s objection to be ‘akin to inviting more killing’,
[the start of this sentence is a bit confusing, as I read it you begin by saying the editor is encouraging TA to disagree with Japan's proposal, then you go on to say his objection is 'akin to inviting more killing' .. it's just a bit contradictory ..
maybe you could say his lackof objection?instilling fears in the audience and urg
ing them to concede the advantageous position of the Prime Minister's role in forming a resolution to terminate Japan's ensuing plans. This engendering of caution and a sense of urgency within readers to be in support of Mr Abbott settlement of a firm stance on Japan's whaling allows the editor to communicate that Abbott, like ‘previous governments’ must conserve nature's precious resources by ceasing Japan’s proposal. Likening whales to the ‘world’s environmental treasures’, the editor intimates, appealing to the environmental views and beliefs of conservationists, the importance of whales to our environment.
Furthermore, they contend that Japan’s goal to remove these treasures
[will continue to do so in Antarctic waters,
] continue to do what? bit unclear what you are trying to say ... stimulating urgency within readers to encourage Abbotts discussion with Japan and a final resolution to end whaling completely.
In a similar manner, the illustrator Mark Knight contends that whale hunting in Japan is executed for other agendas biased from scientific research which the audience must confront. At the center, the whale is disfigured and stripped away from its identity, exhibiting only half its body, with the presence of its tongue and the other half served as meat. The whales slumped tongue suggests that it is exhausted and long deprived from oxygen which reflects the ongoing treatment of whales during Japan’s whaling. The diners in black suits circumferencing the whale (depicting the government of Japan) appear to withhold any action or attention on the gruesome state of the whale which is justified on their blunt emotionless facial expressions. In this representation, Mark Knight intensifies readers probable judgements of Japan's negligence and ignorance on the issue of their whaling schemes and further validates that the scientific research is just a guise. Furthermore, the vast black suits representing death along with the repetition of the bright red painted on the butchers and on the excavation of the shark evokes strong emotions, allowing the audience to reflect on the issue and ensures the audience take a stance on the brutality involved in Japan’s whaling as illustrated by Mark Knight.
Alternatively, by linking Norway and Iceland's “wealth” and “health” with whaling, Constance L.’s letter to the editor, adopting a perceptive and intuitive tone, brings to light that the term should not be depicted with negative connotations which the Age identify it to be a ‘Slaughter’ along with Mark Knight’s illustration. With emphasis to these two terms, Constance offers insight to his readers that the label “Whaling”, like ‘all forms of farming’ are a vital part to sustaining life, appealing to community growth and a sense of unity which attempts to allay
the alarming concepts
that readers may otherwise haveattached to the whaling. Opposing the ‘cynical...approach’ adopted by Japan, he further inclines readers to take into perspective that whales, although large in size, are similar to ‘wheat’ and ‘sheep’, the resources required to sustain life which he reiterates that are not only benefiting the economy but the global ‘community’s life’. In doing so, he is able to justify that we have ‘rightly’ allowed them to do so, that is continue whaling in the countries that have been given the right to do so, and ‘rightly’ oppose Japanese whaling. This juxtaposition removes the negative labels as spurred from The Age and Mark Knight and separates the two, depicting ‘Whaling’ in the new light constructed by Constance L. and ‘Japan's Whaling’ as a ‘program’ we need to ‘interfere’.
While The Age and Mark Knights illustration attempts to appeal to pathos, highlighting the quantity and quality of the state of whales under Japan's scientific project, Constance L appeals to logos, lending credibility to his argument, and describing the benefits whaling can bring to our global society. Constance commences in an inclusive approach stating that the matter regarding Whaling is challenged together with the ‘rest of Australia’, which encourages a sense of solidarity and responsibility, inclining his audience to support his point of view out of a
sense of patriotism. Stating the facts, Constance commends Whaling for the requirement of nordic society like Iceland and Norway to sustain and develop, and comments on the issue in a new light, depicting whaling as indeed ‘beneficial’ to our world, contrasting Mark Knight and The Age’s view on the issue. Moving away from the notion of Logos, The Age, being closely tied to Mark Knights illustration, alludes to the reader's’ sense of empathy and maintains a strong sense of emotional appeal, whilst delivering the actualities pertinent to Japan's whaling. Asserting that over the course of 27 years, 10,000 whales have been slaughtered provides a staggering amount which appeals to the reader's sense of empathy, evoking a critical and cautioned response from conservationists to view whaling as a damaging threat to this planet, harming vast amounts of marine whales converse from Constance L views. Further evoking an empathetic response within readers, The Age comments on the 10,000 whales, supposedly obtained for ‘a multimillion dollar research program’, as now entering the food market for ‘consumption’, later highlighting Japan's remark that this ‘was irrelevant’. Through this sequence, The Age convey the whaling program as deplorable and compels readers to understand the consequences that are to follow if Japan continues with this whaling endeavor. Supporting the latter view, Mark Knight depicts the whale meat being served to diners in an attempt to disparage Japan's ‘scientific endeavor’ and to gain sympathy for the large whale, contrasting its large size and helpless state with the smaller men in power of its fate. In doing so, both Mark Knight and The Age concur on the notion that Japan’s whaling, through the use of implementing quantity and quality of the condition of whales, is irrespectable of scientific research, opposing Constance L’s claim through stating the quantity of ‘10,00 whales’, prompting readers to support the cease of the program and an end to whaling globally.
In closing, Constance L focuses on community values and the benefits involved in whaling, such as its role, which is comparable to farming, in forming prosperous nations like Norway and Iceland, accentuating that the term should not be deemed as holding negative connotations. Conversely, The Age and Mark Knight’s illustration urge readers to view the issue critically. This is supported by The Age’s reference to quantity and quality, being 10,000 ‘slaughtered’ whales and Knight’s illustration of the impassive facial expressions of the diners at the sight of the horrid state of the divided whale as a result of Japan's scientific pursuit. Inevitably, the crux of their argument is sure to continue to spark further debate on the issue of Japan’s whaling.
Also, in the final paragraph/conclusion you could mention the way in which the articles/cartoon leave readers feeling. E.g. are they encouraged to take action, form their own opinion, think more critically about the issue etc.
Home
Help
Search
Login
