- The topic or subject area of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment
I will be exploring refugees seeking asylum in Australia. Miranda Devine’s article will take a right-wing approach, while Luke Mogelson’s will take a centre-left position in favour of asylum seekers.
2. The headline/title/name etc of the items (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast
Mogelson’s article, titled The Dream Boat, was published in The New York Times in November 2015. It was therefore broadcast predominantly in the USA, but it also garnered international attention after winning the 2013 Livingston Award for International Reporting, and Australian attention because it is a relevant and divisive issue.
Devine’s article, The hypocrites of the left, was published in The Daily Telegraph in February 2014. It is likely that it attracted a predominantly local readership as the newspaper does not attract a large international audience.
3. If the items you are going to be discussing are available online, then provide links to the relevant web pages.
4. 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.
Regarding Mogelson’s article, my primary conclusion will be that he is an author who has taken a relatively objective stance on the matter; and, I believe he has written the article to shed light on an issue that Americans can relate to — insofar as they have a large number of ‘illegal immigrants’ — and also identify with on a humanitarian level. I would label his views ‘relatively objective’ because Mogelson will be coming from a perspective that one can assume is not emotionally invested in the issue. There are few informal fallacies in the piece, as it is a feature story of his experience. I would argue that Mogelson appeals to emotions and social norms, inasmuch as his story will inevitably appeal to left-wing audiences in favour of allowing asylum seekers into Australia.
I believe Devine’s article, on the other hand, contains a modus operandi grounded in fear-mongering and conservatism. Her central claim is that Liberal governments’ policies of past and present were effective, humane deterrents against people seeking refuge in Australia via boats. Devine makes informal fallacies about Stephen Conroy (in the form of a distraction argument) and evaluative presumptions regarding the emotive language he uses to convince readers.