Assignment 1 proposal – Adam Goodes and racism

The topic or subject area of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment

 The topic I will be dealing with is the controversy surrounding racism and AFL player Adam Goodes.

The headline/title/name of the items (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast

Item 1:

Fans have no good reason to boo Sydney champion Adam Goodes by Richard Hinds, published in The Daily Telegraph on July 29, 2015 10:40am

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/fans-have-no-good-reason-to-boo-sydney-champion-adam-goodes/news-story/6b46a6e88770b376302063044665a76d

Item 2:

Man Up? I see a man down: booing and being Adam Goodes by Daryl Adair published on The Conversation on August 1, 2015 2.50am AEST

http://theconversation.com/man-up-i-see-a-man-down-booing-and-being-adam-goodes-45536

One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions – i.e.what you anticipate will be the main point of your intended article.

 For two pieces primarily arguing for the same side (in support of Adam Goodes), they certainly take two contrasting approaches. Hinds’ piece immediately launches into an assault, distancing himself from the ‘fools’, immediately establishing an ‘us versus them’ mentality. He makes his position very clear and writes in a fast-paced tone which is almost hostile; simply quoting the most common opposing arguments (of the ‘fools’), and immediately rebutting them without hesitation. The piece is laced with elements of sarcasm designed to mock those who oppose his case, for example the line ‘you can only imagine the terror that hundreds of people sitting amid a crowd of like-minded fans yelling abuse at a footballer from behind a fence must feel when the subject of their taunts hurls an imaginary spear’.

In sharp contrast, Adair’s piece is far more measured, and perhaps more considerate of those on the opposing side. Unlike Hinds, he doesn’t leap to conclusions and fiercely battle for one side; instead opting to present balanced arguments and quote those from both sides without (too much) mockery. His method of presenting argument is entirely different. Despite this more balanced approach, it becomes evident quite early on in the piece which side Adair is arguing for. While he doesn’t state his claim explicitly, his use of select words throughout the piece subtly suggest that he supports Goodes, and is disappointed with the behaviour of those who boo him.

In essence I will be explaining how the two pieces contrast, whilst in the support of the same argument.

Leave a Reply