Bushfires
...ending on who is being attacked or supported, however Michael Hampton also aims his piece specifically at Andrew Bolt. Although we can find similarities between the three authors persuasive writing techniques, there are a few that Andrew Bolt uses which are not found in the other two texts. Repetition and emphasis are two examples of this. Bolt's use of these two strategies in particular are in an attempt to help persuade his audience of exactly how serious this matter is because of the Greens. When Bolt refers to the fact that the fire fighters haven't seen many green activists helping them, he says it "is a shame. A real shame..." He also repeats the word "lunacy" when referring to the Green activists who wanted to leave the forests untouched and states that this is what would have made the fires "worse - much worse..." Bolts use of repetition and emphasis aims to reinforce his point and help the readers to remember it. Sarcasm and generalisations are another couple of techniques used by both Bolt and Hampton in order to persuade the readers of their opinions. Bolt's extensive use of these strategies are all in an attempt to make the readers believe that the Greens are silly because of what they believe in. Bolt sarcastically refers to the firefighters as "wicked tree-killers" and says that they haven't seen many green activists helping them "which is a shame. A real shame..." When talking about how the Greens want us to live as "natures servants" he states, "Fine, if that's what they really want." Sarcasm and generalisations are also found in Michael Hampton's article Apologise to Greens, as he tries to persuade the reader that logging is pointless as afterwards "you'd be lucky to bash through on foot, let alone by vehicle." Both writers use sarcasm in order to grab the reader’s attention and emphasize their point, so that ultimately the readers will side with them. Attacking and belittling their competition is another strategy in which the authors hope to gain support from their readers with. Bolt repeatedly belittles the Greens by using comparisons to religion to describe what they are doing. He refers to them as a "cult", as "tree worshippers", uses the word "preach" when talking about what they believe, and also states that "what's not in the green religion is sinful." These references to religion are all in an attempt to get those who are not of this so-called "religion" thinking that what these people believe is not true. The word "cult" is used to attack the Greens as most people would associate cults with evil. Bolt also refers to them as "greenies" throughout his text which patronizes them, in an attempt to demean them. Michael Hampton attacks Andrew Bolt in his text, as he attempts to get the audience thinking that Bolt has done something wrong, as he doesn't really know what he is talking about. Hampton states that "Any forestry expert would tell Andrew Bolt…" and that "Bolt should apologise…" Luke Chamberlain also uses attacking and belittling to get the readers on his side by stating that those who are blaming environmental groups for the bushfires are "opportunistic" and have an "ungracious lack of respect" for the victims of the bushfires. He also attacks the logging industry by attempting to make them sound selfish when he states that they "seek to use this opportunity to further their own agenda" With such disrespect, the writers are intending to make the reader "look down" upon those who are being attacked and ...