Language Analysis (Chickens Range Free)
Language Analysis
The Opinion piece ‘Chickens range free “is written by Jo Smith, expressing her support for the activists’ rights to protest. This is a contentious issue between to the conflict between the media who don’t support violent actions under any circumstance and the A.A.R, who are violently protesting about the inhumane treatment given to chickens. The AAR maintained that the animals have equal rights to humans whilst the media maintains that equal rights are only applicable to humans. Therefore the issue is whether not the activists but whether violence is ever justified. The tone of the article is authoritative. There is a great deal of sarcasm and exaggeration. The purpose of the article is to persuade readers to support activists in their effort improve the animals conditions. The audience are people, who have sympathy for the animals, people who has certain interest in animal welfare, or people who are just consumers and chicken farmers. The contention of the piece is that animals deserve the same rights as humans. The main purpose is to gain sympathy and support from the readers for their actions.
The article begins with an anecdote that appears to have importance and credibility for their actions. The language used in the first paragraph, includes and appeal to equality amongst animals. Words that prove that the language used in the first sentence is emotive are words such as ‘freedom’, ‘liberation’ and ‘drastic’. The editor’s intended effect on the readers is that direct action is the only way to attract the people’s attention, therefore, justifying the violence in protests. The visual is about chickens being locked up in tiny cages. This supports the author’s contention of how poorly farmers and other people treat their livestock. This creates a shock effect on the viewers of the images used in the article.
The second paragraph is about the general community criticising the animals for their actions. There were sources listed in the
The Opinion piece ‘Chickens range free “is written by Jo Smith, expressing her support for the activists’ rights to protest. This is a contentious issue between to the conflict between the media who don’t support violent actions under any circumstance and the A.A.R, who are violently protesting about the inhumane treatment given to chickens. The AAR maintained that the animals have equal rights to humans whilst the media maintains that equal rights are only applicable to humans. Therefore the issue is whether not the activists but whether violence is ever justified. The tone of the article is authoritative. There is a great deal of sarcasm and exaggeration. The purpose of the article is to persuade readers to support activists in their effort improve the animals conditions. The audience are people, who have sympathy for the animals, people who has certain interest in animal welfare, or people who are just consumers and chicken farmers. The contention of the piece is that animals deserve the same rights as humans. The main purpose is to gain sympathy and support from the readers for their actions.
The article begins with an anecdote that appears to have importance and credibility for their actions. The language used in the first paragraph, includes and appeal to equality amongst animals. Words that prove that the language used in the first sentence is emotive are words such as ‘freedom’, ‘liberation’ and ‘drastic’. The editor’s intended effect on the readers is that direct action is the only way to attract the people’s attention, therefore, justifying the violence in protests. The visual is about chickens being locked up in tiny cages. This supports the author’s contention of how poorly farmers and other people treat their livestock. This creates a shock effect on the viewers of the images used in the article.
The second paragraph is about the general community criticising the animals for their actions. There were sources listed in the