The article that you were asked to analyse for the practice is from the Age newspaper on 26 March 2009. The link is here if you wish to read it online. You need to answer questions about the contention, tone, persuasive techniques and language use as you usually would in an analysis. There are also cultural references which you need to understand before you are able to fully analyse this text.
Mr Acebron’s questions on this are below:
1. 1.Who are the wild ones in the heading? Do you know the cultural reference?
2. From the title alone, what stance do you think the article will take? What is the article’s bias?
3. How does the cartoon change the meaning of the heading? What is its new meaning?
4. What extra information does the sub-heading give you?
5. What parallel does the first paragraph draw? What is the effect of having “the bikie menace” in inverted commas? Highlighting? Ridiculing? Undermining? Enforcing?
6. “… it appears that 37 years later not much has changed.” Is this phrase an appeal to anything?
7. How do the four paragraphs on Canada’s response to bikers serve as a warning to Australia? What happened?
8. What is the effect of the word draconian?
9. What is the writer’s stated point of view? How does the use of inverted commas reverse the meaning of “bikie menace”?
10. What is the Magna Carta? How does mentioning this document add weight to what the writer is about to argue?
11. How have the rules of engagement changed dramatically for bikers?
12. According to the writer, what US initiative has been extremely successful at reducing the incidence of wars?
13. What revelation about bikie members is contained in the Rann Government’s application to ban The Finks? Why?
14. What is the writer’s opinion about the South Australian Serious & Organised Crime Act?
These questions should be answered before you attempt the analysis.
Here is an article related to this one that I have annotated for you. It is about the author of this article and takes an opposing view.
Entries (RSS)