stuff the tigers
Dear Editor,
I’m a regular newspaper reader. Recently I stumbled upon Jeremy Clarkson’s article about tigers. Upon reading it I discovered that I strongly disagree with some of his ideas and points of view and the way in which he writes them. On a personal level I am also fond of these wild animals, which gives me reasons to criticise this article. I can understand that it is difficult to find a rather engaging topic for the readers, especially for the younger audiences. However, this article crosses all of the delicate boundaries that a newspaper is expected to adhere to. It is clear to me, and I am sure to many of your other loyal readers, that the author expresses his views in an offensive way and belittles this sensitive issue by using inappropriate sarcasm. This can clearly be seen from the beginning of the article; the title ‘Stuff The Tigers‘ not only shows Mr. Clarkson’s personal attitudes to all living creatures and the world itself but also uses language to create humour to address a topic that is clearly not humorous. By using a pun on the word ‘stuff’ he is making an insensitive start to his article. While this may appeal to a younger audience, those more educated will find it offensive.
I am not against his article, every person is allowed to have her or his own opinion. However, the author talks about the animals as if they are non-living objects. Is it a correct point of view? I do not believe so.
Animals are living creatures that are a part of our environment, not as Clarkson thinks ‘as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star’. They deserve to be treated with respect. All creatures on this planet have their own purpose and it is not up to us to decide whether they live or die. As the most developed and intelligent species, it is our duty to preserve nature. What is more, it is not that hard to save the tigers from extinction, but clearly Mr. Clarkson cares nothing for their disappearance and the little effort it would take to
I’m a regular newspaper reader. Recently I stumbled upon Jeremy Clarkson’s article about tigers. Upon reading it I discovered that I strongly disagree with some of his ideas and points of view and the way in which he writes them. On a personal level I am also fond of these wild animals, which gives me reasons to criticise this article. I can understand that it is difficult to find a rather engaging topic for the readers, especially for the younger audiences. However, this article crosses all of the delicate boundaries that a newspaper is expected to adhere to. It is clear to me, and I am sure to many of your other loyal readers, that the author expresses his views in an offensive way and belittles this sensitive issue by using inappropriate sarcasm. This can clearly be seen from the beginning of the article; the title ‘Stuff The Tigers‘ not only shows Mr. Clarkson’s personal attitudes to all living creatures and the world itself but also uses language to create humour to address a topic that is clearly not humorous. By using a pun on the word ‘stuff’ he is making an insensitive start to his article. While this may appeal to a younger audience, those more educated will find it offensive.
I am not against his article, every person is allowed to have her or his own opinion. However, the author talks about the animals as if they are non-living objects. Is it a correct point of view? I do not believe so.
Animals are living creatures that are a part of our environment, not as Clarkson thinks ‘as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star’. They deserve to be treated with respect. All creatures on this planet have their own purpose and it is not up to us to decide whether they live or die. As the most developed and intelligent species, it is our duty to preserve nature. What is more, it is not that hard to save the tigers from extinction, but clearly Mr. Clarkson cares nothing for their disappearance and the little effort it would take to