Help for my LA

[Smiley_]

Hi
would someone please give me some feedback on my poorely worded LA.

here is the article


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/its-coalminers-not-moylan-who-are-costing-us-the-earth-20130110-2cix6.html

In the recent debate over climate change and the impact that big corporations can cause on global warming ,debate has arisen over who is to blame and what should be done. “It’s coalminers, not Moylan, who are costing us the Earth” published in “The Age” on the 11th of June By Brown enthusiastically discusses that coalminer CEOs should be held more accountable to the effects of global warming. Bob Brown, as a former leader of the Australia green and a campaigner for environmental issues, uses and educated and measured tone to position the government agencies, the government and people concerned about the environment that coalminers are more to blame on this issue than Moylan.
To begin, his piece Bob Brown begins by suggesting that big business “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”  this positions the reader to view Bob Brown is a positive light and as a man of action, not just someone who will not do anything about the issue other than state an opinion. By using expert opinion from “James Hansen head of NASAs Goddard Institute of Space” that there is “economic, social and environmental costs that will event from “coal fuelled global warming” this informs the reader of the ramifications that are already and will continue to take place if a solution is not found. By appealing to the reader s hip-to-nerve pocket and explaining about the “share market upset” that arose from Jonathon’s Moylan “false news release.” In the writers penultimate paragraph the writer appeals to the readers sense of fear when he describes the “cyclone, bushfire and drought” these words can provide the reader with clear imagery in their minds and position them to agree with the writers contention.

As the pieces progress Brown presents his contention by explaining that Attitudes towards our environment needs to change. By decreasing our “history” when he explains about “Gandi and Mandela” being forced into “jail” this re-enforces the idea into the audiences mind that something that needs to be done about our attitudes towards people who are standing up and fighting for what they believing in. Bob Brown explains that he was “jailed in Tasmania”  for protesting about environmental issues that he believed in, this personal story positions the audience to view him as someone who is educated and knowledgeable further strengthening his credibility to make him someone who is more believable. Bob also continues his letters by explaining about our protesters as being ones who are “committed to non-violence” this presents them in the best possible light compared to the people who are against them. Appealing to our sense of fear Brown describes how he was “beaten up and shot at” this allows the audience to understand more about what he and others who are looking after our environment have gone through. Using the appealing to patriotism Australia has a history “of environmental activism” this positions the audience to view Brown as a proud Australian and someone who know about what our country has achieved as well as what we have failed to achieve. To conclude his piece “business-as-usual” is used to describe a “crime against humanity” this positions the reader to view it as an injustice that these crimes are taking place and harming our environment. The audience is positioned to understand Moylan should not be blamed for everything to do with destroing and "costing us the Earth".

The piece uses a range of different techniques and tones to appeal to his intended audience on the issue of big corporation’s impact on Climate change. Using these techniques the reader is positioned to view the writer contention, that Coal miners are more to blame on the issue rather than Moylan, in a positive light.



 
thanks for reading, I know this piece has a lot of things to improve on but thanks again.

[brenden]

I'm going out in about ten minutes but I'll mark this later tonight . It's too short, by the way.

[brenden]

Well I'm about to give feedback on the essay - there's no reason to call it poorly worded! I'll be the judge of that - EVERYONE started off with some poorly worded essays somewhere in history. It's okay not to be amazing, especially at the start of the year


In the recent debate over climate change and the impact that big corporations can cause on global warming ,debate has arisen over who is to blame and what should be done. Okay, if we take away the subject of the debate, your sentence reads "In the recent debate, debate has arisen" - see the problem here? An easy way to start the first line is with "Following", eg "Following implications of the impact big corporations can hold on global warming, debate has arisen over who is to blame and what should be done." See how it's the same but sounds a bit nicer? It also enables a good flow into your second sentence, because you could then say "As a result, Bob Brown enthusiastically discusses ->> “It’s coalminers, not Moylan, who are costing us the Earth” published in “The Age” on the 11th of June By Brown (June 11th, 2012) -- just more punchy and concise to scrap what I've put a line through and pay attention to the bold.   enthusiastically discusses that coalminer CEOs should be held more accountable to the effects of global warming. Good Bob Brown, as a former leader of the Australia green and a campaigner for environmental issues, uses and educated and measured tone to position the government agencies, the government and people concerned about the environment that coalminers are more to blame on this issue than Moylan. Good . For a bit more content it's okay to give a brief overview of the main emotive/persuasive techniques the author utilises in regards to the target audience. If there were an image, you'd also always mention this in your introduction.
To begin, his piece Bob Brown begins Can you see what's wrong with what I've made red? Re read your own work maybe 15 minutes after you write it to give yourself a break, it will surprise you how much you improve (read it looking for things that you think I would tell you not to do)by suggesting Instead of suggesting, try and structure the sentence to use 'suggests', and do this for all verbs that end with -ing, change it to the shorter from (that would be 'suggests'). So we could begin this paragraph with "Brown suggests that big business [quote here]. In doing so, he intends to position the reader to perceive him in a positive light and as a man of action..." --having two sentences means I can avoid saying 'intending'. Also, that example is just a way to improve your own material, I wouldn't necessarily use it as an opening line for a paragraph.that big business “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”  this positions the reader to view Bob Brown is a positive light and as a man of action, not just someone who will not do anything about the issue other than state an opinion.We could go deeper here and say that in directly positioning these people as against humanity, audience members that consider themselves humane may feel directly opposed to big business, thus more likely to be perceptive to Brown's arguments. But you'll get deeper as the year goes on and you get used to analysis By using expert opinion from “James Hansen head of NASAs Goddard Institute of Space” that there is “economic, social and environmental costs you didn't finish the quote, and this reads badly when you go to quote over there --> because it looks like a quote within a quote. Or quote inception?!?!?!!? that will event from “coal fuelled global warming” As a general rule, we want one "thought" per sentence, and we use fullstops to denote a change in thought, yeah? Recognise the distinct difference between subject x which is information, and then what subject x does after "This /informs/..." - so different sentences. You also would follow "By using expert opinion..." with "this informs", because "by" lends itself more to "By doing x, the author x." Geddit? this informs the reader of the ramifications that are already and will continue to take place if a solution is not found. By appealing to the reader s hip-to-nerve pocket Woah, big break in flow here! We've gone from discussing the dangers and inhumanity of whatever to "BOOM HIP POCKET NERVE". I also know it's easy and comfortable to write "By appealing..." but remember what I said about -ing words? Try to say something "In saying "quote", Brown appeals to the hip-pocket nerve, aiming to..." and explaining about the “share market upset” that arose from Jonathon’s Moylan “false news release.” In the writers penultimate paragraph the writer appeals to the readers sense of fear when he describes the “cyclone, bushfire and drought” two different thoughts <->, we need a fullstopthese words can provide the reader with clear imagery in their minds and position them to agree with the writers contention.

As the pieces progress Brown presents his contention by explaining that Attitudes towards our environment needs to change. By decreasing our “history” when he explains about “Gandi and Mandela” being forced into “jail” this re-enforces the idea into the audiences mind that something that needs to be done about our attitudes towards people who are standing up and fighting for what they believing in. If you aren't going to analyse the words you're quoting - don't quote them. Read that sentence over again. When I see the quotations, I emphasise the word, so I just spent a whole sentence going "...HISTORY, when he explains about GANDI AND MANDELA" being forced into "JAIL"... - putting quotations around jail just makes it sound sarcastic lol. Avoid  this disjointed quoting style unless you actually want to analyse the specific implications of a word. Bob Brown explains that he was “jailed in Tasmania”  for protesting about environmental issues that he believed in, this personal story positions the audience to view him as someone who is educated and knowledgeable further strengthening his credibility to make him someone who is more believableThis previous sentence is what you want a lot more of - analysis! As well as educated and knowledgeable, we can take him as genuine because he practices what he preaches, and thus the audience is positioned into trusting and admiring him . Bob also continues his letters His letters? Waaaaah? by explaining about our protesters as being ones who are “committed to non-violence” this presents them in the best possible light compared to the people who are against them. Appealing to our sense of fear Brown describes how he was “beaten up and shot at” this allows the audience to understand more about what he and others who are looking after our environment have gone through This also appeals to the horror of the audience, intending to shock them that he was shot at and thus position them to be indignant and opposed to those opposed to Brown's contention. Sorry if that made no sense, I'm not sure I even understand it. I REALLY need to stop giving feedback at 3am >.<. Using the appealing to patriotism Two 'ing' words so close together doesn't make sense. Australia has a history “of environmental activism”WE NEED DA PUNCTUATION HERE SONS this positions the audience to view Brown as a proud Australian and someone who know about what our country has achieved as well as what we have failed to achieve.Also analyse how the audience's view of Brown helps him in making the audience agree with his contention! Always link back to the contention if you can, for now To conclude his piece “business-as-usual” is used to describe a “crime against humanity” this positions the reader to view it as an injustice that these crimes are taking place and harming our environment. The audience is positioned to understand Moylan should not be blamed for everything to do with destroing and "costing us the Earth".

The piece uses a range of different techniques and tones to appeal to his intended audience on the issue of big corporation’s impact on Climate change. Using these techniques the reader is positioned to view the writer contention, that Coal miners are more to blame on the issue rather than Moylan, in a positive light.

[Smiley_]

thanks for your help ill redraft when I have the time

[brenden]

You're welcome

[dilks]

Hi
would someone please give me some feedback on my poorely worded LA.

here is the article


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/its-coalminers-not-moylan-who-are-costing-us-the-earth-20130110-2cix6.html

In the recent debate over climate change and the impact that big corporations can cause on global warming ,debate has arisen over who is to blame and what should be done. “It’s coalminers, not Moylan, who are costing us the Earth” published in The Age on the 11th of June by Bob Brown enthusiastically discusses that coalminer CEOs should be held more accountable to the effects of global warming. Bob Brown, as a former leader of the Australia green and a campaigner for environmental issues, uses and educated (knowledgeable? authoritative?) and measured tone to position(?) the government agencies, the government and people (cumbersome) concerned about the environment that coalminers are more to blame on for this issue than Moylan.
To begin, his piece Bob Brown begins by suggesting that big business “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”  this positions the reader to view Bob Brown in a positive light and as a man of action, not just someone who will not do anything about the issue other than state an opinion. (This quote seems underanalysed, surely more depth is possible.) By using expert opinion from “James Hansen head of NASAs Goddard Institute of Space” that there is are “economic, social and environmental costs that will event from “coal fuelled global warming” this informs the reader of the ramifications that are already and will continue to take place if a solution is not found. By appealing to the reader's hip-to-nerve pocket and explaining about the “share market upset” that arose from Jonathon’s Moylan “false news release.” In the writer's penultimate paragraph the writer appeals to the reader's sense of fear when he describes the “cyclone, bushfire and drought” these words can provide the reader with clear imagery in their minds and position them to agree with the writers contention. (weak.)
As the pieces progresses Brown presents his contention by explaining that attitudes towards our environment needs to change. By decreasing (?) our “history” when he explains about “Gandi and Mandela” being forced into “jail” this re-enforces the idea into the audience's mind that something that needs to be done about our attitudes towards people who are standing up and fighting for what they believe in. Bob Brown explains that he was “jailed in Tasmania”  for protesting about environmental issues that he believed in, this personal story positions the audience to view him as someone who is educated and knowledgeable (dubious.) further strengthening his credibility to make him someone who is more believable. Bob also continues his letters by explaining about our protesters as being ones who are “committed to non-violence” this presents them in the best possible light compared to the people who are against them. [It gives them the moral high ground] Appealing to our sense of fear [Fear of what? it is Brown who is the won being shot at. I think this is a different kind of a device.] Brown describes how he was “beaten up and shot at” this allows the audience to understand more about what he and others who are looking after our environment have gone through. Using the appealing to patriotism an appeal to patriotism Brown claims that Australia has a history “of environmental activism” this positions the audience to view Brown as a proud Australian and someone who know about what our country has achieved as well as what we have failed to achieve. [You focus too much on how Brown is trying to change the audience's opinion of him. I think it is more to the point that Brown is trying to position us to think that it is unAustralian not to participate in environmental activism] To conclude his piece “business-as-usual” is used to describe a “crime against humanity” this positions the reader to view it as an injustice that these crimes are taking place and harming our environment. ['business-as-usual' to me suggests this sort of thing happens all the time, and that the reason is because people stand back and let it happen instead of doing something about. He is positioning the reader to think that if we make a stand we will be sending a message to these people that they can't get away with it, which is really the first step to stopping this sort of thing from happening at all. As the author says in the article itself, in plain English, "Where do we draw the line?".] The audience is positioned to understand Moylan should not be blamed for everything to do with destroying and "costing us the Earth".

The piece uses a range of different techniques and tones to appeal to his intended audience on the issue of big corporation’s impact on Climate change. Using these techniques the reader is positioned to view the writer contention, that Coal miners are more to blame on for the issue rather than Moylan, in a positive light.



 
thanks for reading, I know this piece has a lot of things to improve on but thanks again.

There is an over-emphasis on how the author tries to put himself and his contention in 'a positive light', as you call it, and too little emphasis on how language is used to persuade. There are too many sentences which conclude with something along the lines of 'this makes us think of Brown as being a good person', and too few which conclude with something more like, 'in this way the reader is positioned to feel incensed that the CEO's fossil energy companies are willing to act as though the destruction of the planet is merely 'business as usual'. It is 'business as usual' because it is happening on a day-to-day basis, and the reason it happens on a day-to-day basis is because we stand back and let it happen. The reader is positioned to feel that action needs to be taken, urgent action, for our very lives are in danger from “cyclone, bushfire and drought”. A line needs to be drawn, a message needs to be sent to the coalminers that they can't get away with this. As Brown pretty much states, outright, in his by-line: through non-violent protest we can bring about positive change, as a corollary of this if we don't protest at all then no change can occur, and things will just remain the way they are.'

Ultimately I think your contention is too short. Brown does not simply say that the coalminers are to blame, he also says that something needs to be done about it, he is constantly talking about the power of 'non-violent protest'. You are obviously familiar with the concept of a writer's contention, but are you familiar with the writer's intention. The contention is what the writer is saying, but the intention is what he wants the audience to do. And the intention is pretty important here, because Brown wants his audience to protest against what the coalminer's are doing (destroying the planet, and so forth).

Things to work on :p.