Analysis of Editorials

Authors Avatar

Megan Prescott

Year 12 Green

English

Analysis of Editorials

Andrew Bolt’s editorial from the Herald Sun, March 3rd 2003, addresses conservative people concerned with Parliament. He argues critically and forcefully against Kirstie Marshall’s rights to breastfeed her 11-day-old baby Charlotte, in State Parliament. In contrast the editorial taken from The Age February 28th 2003, addresses women or people concerned with women’s rights. They argue factually and formally for the rights of family friendly working environments.  ]

Andrew Bolt begins forcefully by implying that he would know everything “noticed four entirely predictable things”. His direct and frank assertion is unambiguous. In order to convince his audience to side with him, Andrew repeatedly uses personal stance “I”, “I’d” in his writing. He makes his audience believe that if babies were bought into Parliament, women cannot concentrate, so the consequence being that the Government would be under threat. Men however are more serious, therefore not needing women to make decisions as they don’t take government seriously. Andrew cleverly inserts a patronising tone “sweetly”, “magical”, “and no wonder” to convince his audience that men are more superior in such a serious workplace.

Join now!

This is also evident in the heading when we see his patronising tone “There’s a time and place for breastfeeding” where Andrew appears to be a wise old man, putting across that what he says really is right. Throughout the piece we mainly hear echoing that men are more trustworthy to do this job as women don’t belong to such a serious atmosphere. He clearly separates women and men, as women are apparently more “besotted” with children. Bolt uses rhetorical questions in a condescending tone again to repeat his argument against Kirstie Marshall being able to breastfeed in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay