A French Connection By Andrew Bouve Analysis

1246 Words 5 Pages
CRITICAL RESPONSE ESSAY

Andrew Bolt is an established, but controversial, political journalist for the Sydney Herald. In his 2016 opinion piece, “A French Connection is one we cannot trust”, he clearly establishes his stance against the decision to allow Australia to collaborate with France in a $50 billion submarine deal. Bolt utilises a variety of techniques to convey three main ideas: that the manufacturing of the submarines is temporally impractical; that Australia could be at risk if France has too much control in the build; and that France is an unreliable ally for Australia to have (if war between China was to occur). To establish these ideas, Bolt relies heavily on genetic fallacy, emotive language, fear mongering and unsubstantiated
…show more content…
It is unusual for two reasons: that Australia and China are unlikely to be at war in the near future; and that the main purpose of the article is to discuss the submarine deal between Australia and France, irrespective of warfare. Whilst the premise of the argument is questionable, Bolt’s use of descriptive terms to establish the dichotomy between France and Australia, as being bad vs. good, is effective. This is achieved through the use of emotive adjectives such as, “deadly,” “fighting,” and, “threatening,” when describing France, and also through repetition of words normally associated with warfare such as, “weapons”. Bolt further strengthens this divide by using inclusive pronouns when describing Australia. This makes the reader feel personally involved in the article’s content, which appeals to the patriotic, and further deepens the divide between the two nations. This is evident when Bolt implies that the submarine deal alone may, “cripple us in war,” and that such an outcome is inevitable based on France’s propensity to abuse its position of, “power…against other countries”. The consistent use of emotive adjectives and the personification of France as an enemy figure enables Bolt to present his argument in a biased manner against France. He appeals to the basic human need to be safe by suggesting that a partnership with France would, “almost certainly,” result in war. Further, he uses facts to appeal to the readers sense of logic by mentioning instances where France was an unreliable ally by year. This form of repetition enforces the negative stereotype of France, whilst also making the information appear more legitimate. Bolt’s belief that Japan is a better ally for Australia is based on Bolt’s depiction of Frances’ previous ‘betrayals’. This is inappropriate

Related Documents