Political Rhetorical Analysis

586 Words3 Pages
Q1) The writer’s main contention is that it should be made illegal for politicians to tell lies that mislead the general public. The three supporting arguments include: Anyone who knowingly lies in a court of law can be legally prosecuted, and politicians lies can have more implications on the general public than this. Politician’s lies have a vast effect on the democratic system and hence our society in general. A growing mistrust in our political system can be attributed to the false narrative that politicians state. Q2) The tone of the article tends to be quite accusatory; as they connect many societal and democratic issues to one general issue - politicians lying. By utilising phrases, such as: “uttered to deliberately mislead the public”, “election promises that are…show more content…
Finally, there is quite a lot of reference to facts without any sources in this article; for example: “Australia’s trust emergency”, “weakening back of our political system” and “Australia… remains stuck in the dark ages”. Even without sourcing, readers are made to feel as though this is true, as the tone of which these statements are declared is matter-of-fact, quite confident and very blunt. Q3) The accusatory tone directly refers back to the idea that everything stated in the article can be drawn back to the villain - which in this case, is made to be Australian politicians. Anger reinforces the idea that we, as a society, are vastly affected by this issue and also positions the issue to seem very negative to the reader, which persuades them to think the severity of the lies is greater than it may actually be. The matter-of-fact tone also helps to establish severity, and the idea that this problem relates back to everybody in the current
Open Document