Tony Abbott's decision to revive the ancient traditions of knighthood, ignited a nation wide controversy. This current debate which has been circulating around the Australian public, has reached its peak, consequently to Tony Abbott awarding the knighthood position to Prince Philip. In a newspaper article in the Herald Sun, entitled “Andrew Bolt says Philip knighthood could cost Tony Abbott the leadership”, provides extracts of Andrew Bolt's belligerent comments regarding Tony Abbott's declaration. Likewise, an opinionated editorial in the Age, titled “Duke should not be a knight of our realm”, condemns this “anachronistic nonsense”, especially the honouring of a non- Australian with such a rank, and notes that it would be more productive
…show more content…
This piece suggests that the decision is so “damaging” the price has to be paid, at the cost of Tony Abbot's leadership. The piece proposes that it is a choice, where his (Tony Abbott's) friends would “feel stupid defending it”. By appealing to the audience's desire to fit in, the reader is positioned to avoid “feeling stupid” and proposes the resolution for that objective, is to oppose Tony Abbott's heedless novation. Further appealing to the readers sense of patriotism, the reader comes to the realisation that Tony Abbott's recent adoption is not only “damaging” but will “help his enemies” and turn the nation in a “laughing stock”. The inclusion of these phrases, stirs fear that a bleak future is in store for Australia, where in the enemies will thrive Australia, whilst the the nation and its content become an international joke. By disclosing expert evidence that is in the form of colloquialism, the reader is made to feel that the experts are speaking for the people, thus is manipulated to align themselves against kingship of Prince …show more content…
However, unlike the Herald Sun article, this piece pursues a more condescending and appalled tone to approach the matter. The underlying central idea of the piece is the fact the Abbott government as a collective is misguided and out of the touch with the Australian society. This was also reinforced in the Herald Sun editorial, when the author outlined Tony Abbott's “increasing isolation and perceived inability to take advice from colleagues”. Such remarks stations the audience to reflect on the incompetent government that is leading the nation, thus is made to believe Abbott leadership is “truly out of sync with the Australian community” as quoted by Attorney – General Senator George Brandis. By incorporating a quote, from a fellow Liberal party member, as well as a key supporter of Tony Abbott, this phrase reconnects with what was mentioned in The Herald Sun piece, that Tony Abbott's decision is so friendless, that even his friends “would feel stupid defending it.” The inclusion of this quote again highlights the incompetence of Abbott and his leadership, as it also dismantles any preconceived conceptions readers may possess, that Abbott is an effectual leader. Supplementarily, this particular Age article, constantly attempts to appeal to the readers sense of patriotism, by drilling to their
This piece suggests that the decision is so “damaging” the price has to be paid, at the cost of Tony Abbot's leadership. The piece proposes that it is a choice, where his (Tony Abbott's) friends would “feel stupid defending it”. By appealing to the audience's desire to fit in, the reader is positioned to avoid “feeling stupid” and proposes the resolution for that objective, is to oppose Tony Abbott's heedless novation. Further appealing to the readers sense of patriotism, the reader comes to the realisation that Tony Abbott's recent adoption is not only “damaging” but will “help his enemies” and turn the nation in a “laughing stock”. The inclusion of these phrases, stirs fear that a bleak future is in store for Australia, where in the enemies will thrive Australia, whilst the the nation and its content become an international joke. By disclosing expert evidence that is in the form of colloquialism, the reader is made to feel that the experts are speaking for the people, thus is manipulated to align themselves against kingship of Prince …show more content…
However, unlike the Herald Sun article, this piece pursues a more condescending and appalled tone to approach the matter. The underlying central idea of the piece is the fact the Abbott government as a collective is misguided and out of the touch with the Australian society. This was also reinforced in the Herald Sun editorial, when the author outlined Tony Abbott's “increasing isolation and perceived inability to take advice from colleagues”. Such remarks stations the audience to reflect on the incompetent government that is leading the nation, thus is made to believe Abbott leadership is “truly out of sync with the Australian community” as quoted by Attorney – General Senator George Brandis. By incorporating a quote, from a fellow Liberal party member, as well as a key supporter of Tony Abbott, this phrase reconnects with what was mentioned in The Herald Sun piece, that Tony Abbott's decision is so friendless, that even his friends “would feel stupid defending it.” The inclusion of this quote again highlights the incompetence of Abbott and his leadership, as it also dismantles any preconceived conceptions readers may possess, that Abbott is an effectual leader. Supplementarily, this particular Age article, constantly attempts to appeal to the readers sense of patriotism, by drilling to their