The speech bubble above mocks Blair’s attitude to the affair. “PH*CKET” is a pun on the name of one an area badly affected by the tsunami. The word sounds similar to ‘a slang term used to show apathy towards a situation. Next to Blair is a bottle of “caress sun oil”, and underneath, a newspaper with the title “Tsunami death toll”. This is a subliminal message, which reinforces Parsons’ view that Blair is ‘careless’ and that “rubbing some more Ambre Solaire on his wife’s behind” is more important to him than the tsunami on the Indian Ocean.
After the headline, attention is drawn to the byline. The byline is a short, bold sentence that sets the tempo for the rest of Parsons' article. It summarises the page, but ensures interest so the reader carries on reading the article.
Parsons' use of short paragraphs helps him organise his work into cut-short groups of ideas. They are repetitive and forceful, like repeated punches aimed at Blair’s credibility. Such paragraphs re-inforce Parsons’ argument.
To appeal to the readers of his newspaper, the language Parsons uses is vulgar and informal. Using words that the readership is used to suggests that Parsons is representing the people, his is the voice of popular outrage. Phrases like “poor buggers” make a memorable impact, especially when used against important leaders.
Parsons also uses sophisticated and vulgar vocabulary throughout the article. Words such as “belated” and “passivity” are blended in with colloquialisms like “hardass” and “dodgy ticker”. Parsons uses this reminding the readership of his knowledge and authority, while retaining their attention through hard-edged words.
Parsons’ appealsto emotion too. His references to a child (a symbol of vulnerability and those who we must protect) “too small to cling to palm trees, too tiny to fight for their lives, too vulnerable to survive those giant waves.” Parsons later contrasts the British people who have “responded with their usual generosity and compassion” to Blair’s indifference as he is “soaking up the sun”. Such a comparison flatters the readers while exaggerating Blair’s faults, giving them permission to ook down on the Prime Minister.
Personal anecdotes individualize Parsons’ views. “A friend from Liverpool on holiday” can be seen to add realistic and reliable details. Ordinary people can relate to details like this, because Thailand is a popular tourist destination and many will have heard similar stories.
Parsons repeats “never mind” in his first four paragraphs as a hook for readers. By being told to ‘never mind’ the consequences of the tsunami, readers realise how shallow this view is, setting Parsons up to accuse Blair of holding this opinion. Parsons has cleverly employed an ironic reverse psychology, alongside rhetoric and sarcasm to mould the reader to his viewpoint and exaggerate the seriousness of his subject.
Parsons uses descriptive words in groups of three. Parsons uses lists of three such as "cholera, typhoid and malaria" and “touchy, defensive and brittle”. Hearing lists like these is psychologically satisfying -- there is a natural cadence. Balir himself famously used the phrase ‘Education, education, education’ to promote his stated priorities during his political campaigning. Parsons uses list of threes to make his arguments seem stronger.
He also provides examples of other political leaders who have made more of an effort than Blair. Comparing the British Prime Minister to his peers can be argued to have added a particular force to the polemic. Parsons also compares the death toll to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, where Blair’s response was much more pro-active. The numbers of tsunami dead dwarfed those of 9/11.
Parsons uses persuasive techniques like rhetoric, repetition, sarcasm and hyperbole. By 2005, Britain’s enthusiasm for Blair was beginning to wane and Parsons is keen to rubbish him. The author reflects a popular mood that British politicians are ‘in it for themselves’ and that they do not really care.
He whips up anti-Blair feeling amongst his readership. It also an exercise in self-flattery, praising his readership and the behaviour of ordinary people when compared with political leaders. The article is effective in that it is likely to elicit the outraged response Parson seeks. Whether it is truthful is a different question altogether.
