Language Analysis (2), Appreciate feedback

[Callum@1373]

In response to the report released by the Accident Prevention Group which suggests that all forms of phone use by drivers should be interdicted, President of the National Organisation of Drivers (NOD) David James’ opinion piece; ‘Mobile Concerns’ contends that measures taken to reduce the road toll should be practical and logical, which is not evident in the suggestions made in APG’s report. Published in the NOD Magazine on the first of January, 2011, James uses a matter-of-fact tone to appeal to a wide audience, but particularly those who own a car.

The outset is controlled by James positioning readers to trust him. Readers are forced to consider both sides of James’ argument through the inclusion of evidence from the APG report, while it does not agree with James’ contention, it provides the framework which James can refer to justify why he disagrees, in turn providing a more logical and believable piece to readers. Connecting the words ‘Our own position’ with ‘We assert’, James speaks on behalf of the NOD in order to give readers the feeling they are hearing from an authoritative and experienced group, which multiplies the sense of trust James wishes to create with his audience. Juxtaposing the disadvantages of a hand-held phone with the advantages of a hands-free phone such as ‘full control’, readers are positioned to believe that there are tangible measures that can be taken to use a phone while driving. James recognizes that a hands-free device could be a distraction while driving, so he ensures all of his readers are agreeing with him by showing that the opinions of ‘some’ are unreal. This is achieved through comparing talking into a hands-free phone with that of ‘normal activities’, which ensures all readers are on his side as readers they are likely to have ‘[looked] at a GPS’ or took ‘a sip of water’. The words ‘perfectly normal [activities]’ accentuate this effect as no-one is likely to disagree with doing something that is ‘normal’ in a car, in order to compel readers to believe that a hands-free device is not a potential car fatality factor.

James’ argument swifts to an emotional anecdote in order to appeal to the readers sense of fear. The notion that it ‘doesn’t take much’ for a scenario where no use of a phone in a car would be ‘distressing’ suggests to readers that an aforementioned scenario is highly probable and therefore readers are compelled to want to use a phone in their car for the safety of themselves and others. Suspense is built up in readers through repetition of ‘she rings’, accentuating the devastating effects that the lack of a phone while driving could have on the reader. This situation is contrasted in an image accompanying the piece where a driver is wearing a hands-free device with both hands on the steering wheel while in a relaxed position, which aims to make readers support the use of a hands-free device as they would be ‘focussed’ and ‘in control’ to ‘readily take the call’. James highlights through the rhetorical question ‘and what parent would want to do that’ (not answering a call from an injured daughter) the dis-interest he has with a proposed law to ban all phone devices in a car, compelling readers to agree with the use of them so they do not ‘have to live with the guilt’ of undesirable situation where not having a phone while driving would affect them negatively.

James’ moves further into the implications of the disallowance of phones in vehicles to persuade readers into believing that the implications are unpractical. James’ appeals to the readers sense of sympathy through ‘The police have a hard enough job’ , highlighting how such a law would not be reasonable as differentiating between a driver talking into a hands-free device and one ‘talking to a passenger’ would be a complicated, task that reduces the time police have to go about their day-to-day jobs.

The idea that ‘something needs to be done’ to reduce the road toll proposes a change in direction to readers, from a discussion of the negatives of disallowing phone devices in cars to perhaps a discussion of other measures that can be taken to reduce the road toll. The suggestion that persuading governments ‘to fix roads’ would be a ‘more logical focus’ attempts to bring down the ideas of the APG and put a positive spark in readers that there are other ‘logical’ activities that can be done to reduce the road toll. A sense of informality is introduced with ‘surely that is the price’ to make our roads ‘safe’ that contrasts with James’ serious tone throughout the piece, which makes it seem to readers that reducing the road toll is a large process and therefore APG’s ‘reactionary’ response is unfit to bring down the road toll.

James attempts to finish his piece by positioning to see mobile phones as essential for their lives, to ultimately persuade them into disagreeing with the proposed ideas incited by the APG. This is achieved by explaining that they ‘provide us with a sense of security’, highlighting the need for them in cars. James ends by acknowledging the proposed direction offered by the APG, however, further emphasizes his contention by restating it in the last line, in order to leave readers with the feeling of a truthful and well represented argument by a professional organisation.

[thaaanyan]

Feedback you asked for, attached.
All in all way better...good job with the improvement,
still stuff to work on but a step up from the first piece.

[heids]

Awesome feedback thaaanyan, way better than mine would have been... I only provide feedback because no one else does so I'm glad you're willing to!

I wrote this LA too sometime in the year (timed from memory), it's not great but I'll post it Callum if you want to read someone else's approach.

Spoiler

The APG's recent report, insisting that all forms of mobile phone use by drivers should be banned, has sparked great controversy.  David James, president of the National Organisation of Drivers, contends in his opinion article “Mobile Concerns” (published in the magazine “Driver”) that while hand-held phones should be banned, handsfree phones are both safe and necessary.  Initially comparing hands-free phones with other “perfectly normal” actions, James then appeals to parental emotion with the importance of phones, following this by portraying the ban as unenforceable.  James then suggests an alternative solution to decrease fatality: fixing roads.  Thus, appealing to all Australians who are interested in driving, James argues that such a ban is “not going to help anyone”, rather other solutions should be unearthed.

Beginning with an informative tone, reflected in his balanced headline “Mobile Concerns”, James outlines the APG's report to provide context.  Becoming more blunt in tone, James asserts that the proposed ban is “reactionary” and “completely unnecessary”. This positions the reader to see it as an extreme step, motivated not by logic but by haste and thoughtlessness.  This undermines its credibility in the reader's mind.  James then compares a hands-free phone to other “perfectly normal activities”, such as “singing”, “talking” or “looking”.  As the audience would think it ridiculous and highly imposing to ban these, James attempts to make them view the ban as equally extreme and ridiculous.  The accompanying image, a sharply focused silhouette of a driver using a hands-free phone, supports James' contention that “full concentration” is possible and hands-free phones are not dangerous.  The crisp, undistracting outline, combined with the tautly stretched arm and straight head, suggests complete power, control and focus.  James thus insinuates that hands-free phones do not detract from driver control and safety.

James' tone transforms to one of greater sympathy and emotion as his voice slows down to paint a “distressing” picture.  The hypothetical anecdote with its second person “your”, draws the reader in and tugs at their heartstrings as they picture their own suffering.  A “seven year old” appears vulnerable and helpless, especially when “upset” and in “hospital”.  Through repetition of her “rings” on the phone, James portrays the situation as urgent and worrying, building a sense of alarm and distress in the reader.  James then draws sharp contrast: with a hands-free phone, “appropriate action” is possible; without it, healing the situation is both “impossible” and “illegal”.  This depicts a ban on hands-free phones as heartless and potentially dangerous: counter-productive, since the aim was in fact to decrease danger.  James then appeals to the instinct in parents to care for and protect their child when they “most need” help.  Heightening parental emotion, James insinuates that the “suffering” and “guilt” caused by this ban will be ongoing, as they will have to “live with it”.  Especially for parents, then, James attempts to make hands-free phones appear necessary safeguards.  Furthermore, James describes the issue as the “fate” of “law-abiding citizens”, implying to the reader (who would believe themselves to be “law-abiding”) that they, who do not deserve punishment, will have to suffer by this ban.

James' tone once more becomes blunt as he illustrates that “some people” would disobey the law, in contrast to “law abiding” readers.  By portraying the ban as “complicated” and “incredibly difficult” to enforce, James positions the reader to view the ban with contempt as it is impossible to enforce.  A rhetorical question, querying “how easy it would be to differentiate” between other activities and a hands-free phone forces the reader to see the impossibility, and therefore uselessness, of the ban, as well as suggesting that hands-free phones are just as harmless as these similar activities.

Attempting to appear balanced and understanding, the author states agreement with the aim of decreasing “fatalities and injuries”.  This enhances James' credibility in the reader's mind.  Providing “a more logical focus”, James proposes fixing roads.  Description of “pot-holes” and “poor shoulders”, culminating in the word “treacherous”, positions the reader to see road condition as significantly more dangerous than “perfectly normal” hands-free phones.  While furthering his appearance of balanced credibility by admitting the cost of this solution, James portrays this as a necessary sacrifice “if our roads are to be safe” - subtly implying that fixing roads is indeed the way to ensure safety.

James' conclusion reiterates the vital nature of phones in our “daily life”, positioning the reader to see them as necessary and helpful as they provide “security”, “peace of mind” and “contact'.  Admitting the benefits of banning handheld phones and trying to reduce road toll, James nonetheless argues that “banning handsfree mobile phones is not going to help anyone”.  The reader is left viewing such a ban as not only useless, but even in some ways destructive to safety.

EDIT: on reading this LA, it's not great (~7 maybe) because a) it's very brief, like 750 words, and b) it just doesn't go all that much into impact on audience!  Sorry!

[Callum@1373]

Thanks thaaanyan, it's very nice of you to put in this effort. Thanks for noticing the improvement, your advice was a major part of that. 

Thanks bangali_lok, i'll have a read of it soon