Language_Analysis

Language analysis By Benjamin Huynh Issue: Tiger woods coming to Melbourne 7:05 The Melbourne Masters golf tournament has surfaced, once again, the debate about Tiger Woods, and if he is worth the three million dollar payment. Tony Jones, Nine News sports presenter, contends in a conversational and at times sarcastic tone, that the three million dollar appearance fee is unjustified by the government, in his online NINEMSN blog “ TIGER WOODS FRENZY A BIT RICH” on 19 March 2009. In direct contrast, the editorial “ Tiger to set state roaring “ ( 19 March 2009) employs a utilitarian approach towards the issue, taking on a quite approving tone to argue that Tiger Woods will be worth the three million dollars, and will most definitely benefit our nation. In Mark Knights humorous cartoon, found in the Herald Sun on the 22 march 2009, he suggests that the state is a little extravagant spending. Jones initially uses a very critical approach towards his argument, questioning the real purpose of the issue “ is this what the Melbourne-Sydney rivalry has come to'... getting one up over the ‘harbour city’.” He questions the government and their analysis of the issue, in an attempt to put forth the fact that the government seem to have lost purpose . The words “harbour city’’ sets a relaxed feel to the blog, which arouses comfort towards the reading of the piece. To re-emphasize and further criticize the government in their endeavours, he considers that we are “forking out $ 3 million” . the statement “forking out” reflects a sense of carelessness and lack of importance of the money, ultimately making the reader inclined towards Jones’contention. In relation to his criticism on the government , an appeal to “taxpayers” hip-pocket nerve is evoked through saying “$ 1.5 of taxpayers money” is used to cover the three million in which the government is merely “...chipping in half of...”. Taxpayers will feel rather annoyed with the government as Jones humiliates , and belittles them when saying “chipping in” which indicates a lack of effort by the government. In further construction of his argument, Jones uses sarcasm to continue his belittling. He ridicules the government in all the other problems the state is faced with such as “..trains.. on time,...children to endure over-crowded classrooms,.. and waiting on elective surgery..” this will intensify the shocking position the government has been placed in. Jones wants readers to feel overwhelming anger. As readers see the government has so many other problems, they will doubt the initial decision to use three million dollars to invite Tiger Woods to Melbourne. His final line is “whether that justifies the $3 million appearance fee, i don’t know.” it is not a direct question but is rhetorical on its own, illustrating that he doesn’t seem to think that it is justifiable. He indirectly creates the opportunity for readers to feel the same way. In a different perspective from Jones, the editorial shares the other point of view. The title “Tiger to set state roaring” of the editorial is very eye-catchy, and on first glance is a pun, used to ease the reader into the article. The build up by the author “the economic crisis...devastating Black Saturday bushfires have drained Victorians...”is used to induce readers to feel desperate for the state of Victoria. When something “devastating”, the perception of shock and great upset will stream through readers, the word “drained”is used to further suck out the emotion from the reader, as being drained is very physical, suggesting all energy and hope is gone. To contrast the lack of energy in the state, the author proposes an ideal outcome of having “..an event to boost tourism and public confidence.” To emphasise the point, a rebuttal is used against the argument that taxpayers are in fact paying 1.5 million, and it is stated that “...benefits...will focus world attention on Melbourne as a tourist destination and a place to do business.” Implying that the publicity created will be awesome, and as a state, we will ,in due course, benefit most. Readers will feel that an opportunity has arisen for glory to be brought upon Melbourne, and to take pride in our city. This will be effective in compelling readers because, generally, recognition and glory is loved by the people. Mark knights humorous cartoon, presents a similar view to that of Jones, but in a fresh and enjoyable way for the viewer. In the visual, Tiger is within his proud, arrogant, but regal strut, he represents the package, and the formidable player he is. Following him is John Brumby, who is his caddy. Brumby is seen to be carrying Tiger’s bag of clubs, also filled with overflowing money, that also lands on the ground. This implicates that there is an excessive amount of money being invested into getting Tiger into Melbourne. It also suggests that the importance of money is being overshadowed by the means of the cause. It is also apparent that Brumby is tired, and puffing, literally meaning he is not enjoying the job. This re-emphasises and reflects the exhaustion of our government and our money, and how it has been overused. The fatigue of our government is similar to Jones argument that the government already has too many other issues at hand. Mark Knight , is possibly the most well-known cartoonist, which adds credibility to his point of view. The blog, editorial and cartoon are all very different and rather contrasting forms of media, but they are all similar in many ways. They all state valid points and powerfully present their case. Where Jones exploits the government through criticism, the editorial is looking for world recognition, and on the other hand, Knight’s cartoon is enhanced with humour, and attempts to extract a response. In all fairness, and respect, knights approach to the issue stands out amongst all the media reponses, as it cleverly, and strategically combining humour, which we all enjoy, with a serious issue. 9:14