The two texts look at the event from opposite viewpoints. Of the two I thought that the language used in the first article was more shocking and made the event sound devastating and more like a disaster compared to the way in which the event was described in the second article. One of the main reasons it sounded more realistic and shocking was because statistics were used to show the readers just how bad the disaster really was. Another reason I think that the first article was particularly effective because it uses words such as ’emergency’, ‘critical’, ‘salvage’ and ‘disaster’.
Words like these are effective because they are examples of emotive language. They appeal to the readers’ emotions and make them think that the situation is urgent and that the animals are in great danger. This encourages the readers to help, which is the aim of the WWF (as they say in the last paragraph in bold). The overall effectiveness of this article is very good, though when I read the last paragraph it made me think differently because the WWF sound like they are using the disaster for advertising purposes.
The second article was trying to convince the reader that the disaster was not so bad. This article did not succeed in convincing me of this though. The writer of this article tried to obviously turn it around and instead of making the disaster itself the subject of the article, they tried to make the beauty and power of ‘mother nature’ the main subject of the article. Like the WWF fact sheet, this article also uses emotive language to persuade the reader, however the emotive language is used for the opposite reason.
Instead of using it to show just how bad the disaster was, the writer uses it to say how the disaster wasn’t that bad. Examples of the emotive language used are words such as, ‘triumph’, ‘signs of hope’ and ‘rebirth of beauty’. These words didn’t convince me though because the writer has an obviously biased view and to me it sounds as if this article is attempting to cover up the incident and make it sound as if it wasn’t the fault of the oil tanker and the company behind it.
I thought that the most effective and convincing article was the WWF fact sheet. The language in the text convinced me because the article was written very clearly with statistics and quotes to back up their points. Compared to the other article I thought this was better because instead of trying to cover up what happened the WWF article just gave the bare facts. The powerful emotive language also helped to convince me with words such as ‘rapidly,’ ‘critical’ and ‘disaster’.