Shark Cull SAC
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Shark culling has become the new issue for the Australian media. Over the past three years, after seven fatal shark attacks in Western Australia’s waters, Premier Colin Barnett, declared to kill any shark bigger than three meters spotted in the designated kill zones. This culling has killed many sharks and is going to result to the extinction of these species. Miranda Devine published an opinion piece with the headline “A tasty dish for a very big fish… and it’s all our fault” in The Daily Telegraph newsletter on February 12th, 2014 stating that it is our fault that we have become part of shark’s food chain. Julia Baird also published an opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald on the 1st of the February 2014, with the headline “Shark cull: From jaws of defeat” opposing that sharks should be culled for a safer environment for the beaches.
The selected poster from the website “Culling is not the answer” was published on the 25th of January, 2014 supporting that by killing sharks we are not making any difference on saving lives. Many people aren’t sacred to enter the territory of sharks and their environment. A number of Australian’s oppose the culling of sharks and do not fear of getting back into the ocean. Miranda Devine published an opinion piece with the headline “A tasty dish for a very big fish… and it’s all our fault” in The Daily Telegraph newsletter on February 12th, 2014 with the contention that it is our fault that we have become part of shark’s food chain. This is directed to the people that do not support the culling with a very direct tone. The author uses harsh words such as “Dirty” “scum” and stinking humans” to create a strong emotion, these strong words influences the reader to agree with the author’s main argument that “it is our fault that we have become a part of their food chain”.
The writer used a rhetorical question which states “how many more humans need to be attacked by sharks before we heed the warning?” in this way, the reader is positioned to agree with the writer’s contention that humans are the reason behind this shark attacks on humans, it is our fault that now great white are familiar with humans blood. Miranda’s use of anecdote “In South Australia, where the latest shark attack Adelaide teacher Sam Kellett, 28, was killed last weekend.” It gives an emotional feel and it draw’s the reader’s attention and adds interest to the article. Another use of anecdote, Vic Hislop, Australia’s most knowledgeable shark hunter, who has spent his life observing shark behaviour, believes that “sharks which develop a taste for humans need to be haunted down and killed” emphasise the reader to feel sympathy for these sharks and gain anger against him to say such a disturbing things about these species.
The website Supportourshrak.com published a poster saying “Culling is not the answer”. The directed audience of these posters are people of Australia and strongly to premier of Western Australia Colin Barnett. The tone of these posters presents a very annoyed and irritated tone. In the poster, the shark is shown behind the net which highlights that they are trapped in their own territory. Shark culling will affect the oceans ecosystem. The use of a strong word “Not” in the heading tells that by culling sharks, it is making no difference in saving lives. The poster is also not supporting the culling of sharks like other two articles and is contending the similar point of view that shark culling must be stopped. On the other hand Julia Baird published an opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald on the 1st of the February 2014, with the headline “Shark cull: From jaws of defeat” with the contention that humans have the right to feel safe on beaches and therefore sharks should be culled.
The tone of this article is supportive with a directed audience to Australian government. The writer uses a statistic in the beginning of the article “An estimate 4000 people gathered at Cottesloe Beach on January 4 to protest the shark cull: Steve Brown”. Position’s the reader to believe and agree with the author’s argument; it is more convincing because the evidence is presented. To support the evidence, Julia Baird has provided an image of the Cottesloe beach which again helps to persuade the reader’s to agree with the contention. The author also uses a rhetorical question “You can kill any shark that gets out of the sea and starts killing us in our natural habitat of street and pubs and internet cafes. Deal?” it positions the reader to question themselves about the shark culling.
The answer of the question is obvious and therefore the reader will agree with the Ricky Gervais that it is making no difference in saving lives, like Miranda Devine said in her article that “the ocean is not there to share. It is the shark’s domain which we enter at our own risk, with no right to protect over selves.” In these three articles the tone changes significantly. The poster uses annoyed and irritated tone to draw attention to the situation of the shark culling. Whereas, Miranda Devine’s an opinion piece uses a straight-forward and direct tone to get straight to the point of the contention. However, Julia Baird’s opinion piece uses a knowledgeable and emotive tone to address the issue of the shark culling and to make people feel safer at the beaches environment.