Melanie Phillips Essay Example

Melanie Phillips Essay Example Melanie Phillips Essay Melanie Phillips Essay Melanie Phillips article is about how she feels about violence on T.V and video. The article contains Melanie Phillips strong opinions and views on video violence and how she is against it. She wants everyone to be aware of what is going on on T.V and video and warning parents to protect their children.The headline is designed to attract attention because it makes you think. The word mediocrity has 2 meanings, middle state or second rate and it doesnt say which one she means so that is there to confuse you. It also gives you the idea of mediocrity fighting which is quite surprising. The mediocrity is supposed to be the masses who are governed by the powerful so if they rebelled against the powerful leaders it would be a surprise.The violent truth part seems to contradict its self because the truth isnt usually violent which would puzzle the reader but what Melanie Phillips means by violent truth is the truth about violence on T.V and video. She is against violent movies, videos and t elevision programs and children being able to view them. She doesnt like children mimicking the violence they see on T.V and video that are being broadcast early in the afternoon so that the children can watch it.The headline could also mean that people who wont accept the truth are mediocre.In the opening paragraphs Melanie Philips uses a conversational tone to entice you into reading her views. She also uses rhetorical questions to make it feel like she is talking to you.Well, are you for video violence or against it?Melanie Phillips actually opens her article with a rhetorical question which makes you feel involved and that your opinions are valued. Rhetorical questions and conversational tone are effective because it makes it feel like Melanie Phillips is having a conversation with the reader and it gives the text a natural feel.No one would actually answer her second rhetorical question:Do you think children should continue to be exploited for commercial profit by amoral film m akers etc.Which also gives the reader a chance to think about their views on video violence.Melanie Phillips answers most of her own rhetorical questionsYou do?You dont?At the start Melanie Phillips makes a shocking contradiction when she pretends to congratulate the people who agree with video violence and insults the ones who dont which shocks the reader because what they have read so far sounds like she is against it.Another technique that Melanie Phillips uses is emotive language that is meant to disgust the reader. Using strong words like explicit degradation is meant to alarm the reader and helps put across her powerful views.Amoral film-makers selling images of sadism, gratuitous violence and explicit degradation.She also uses slang expressions, which also adds to the impression she is talking to you personally.Come on now dont dodge the question.Melanie Phillips uses sarcasm when she talks about Michael Winner and Dr Guy Cumberbatch. She calls Michael Winner an exploiter, wh ich is her real opinion of him but she sarcastically corrects herself and calls him a creative artist, which is his opinion of himself. And again for Dr Cumberbatch, she says he uses exploitation, which is what she thinks it is and then sarcastically corrects herself and calls it artistic freedom which they say it is.It is a clever way of putting across her views and not getting into trouble.Melanie Phillips starts off with quite long sentence and using only small words but as the article wears on she starts to use clever long words that mean the same as a long sentence of small words. This illustrates her large vocabulary. Short, complicated sentences are more effective than long, simple ones because it puts across her views and makes her look intelligent at the same time but long, simple sentences dont have the same effect that short, complicated one do because they waste time and dont make the writer sound as intelligent.Crime is a complicated matrix of causes.The sentences lose their informality after the first few paragraphs and start to use more formal language. The words get longer and more difficult which replaces the slang at the start of the article. It stops sounding like she is talking to you and more like a complaining letter to a television company.The content says all the way through that violence does affect children but it lacks evidence and it sounds like she spends more time sneering than finding proof and proving her point. She doesnt give the reader any proof so it is really only Melanie Phillips own opinion, which is ineffective. If she had given the reader a life story of a child who had copied something off T.V and said what he/she had done then her point would have been put across more effectively and it would be more interesting to read. She also failed to say what the American research had found out if anything. The article is disappointing in that respect.The picture is effective because of its boldness. It has a hint of humour in i t with the clapboard sound of music 2 maniac nun.The fat director has aggressive body language, and evil look, trying to look young by exposing his hairy chest and his money-shaped medallions and looks to have a very loud voice even without his megaphone. He looks like he is splattered with blood which signifies that he makes his money from violence and the contence in his cup looks more like a potion and not a drink. The picture emphasizes Melanie Phillips views on amoral filmmakers.My opinion is that there is a lot of violence on T.V and video now and some impressionable children might copy what they see on T.V but it is really up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their children to see it or not. If parents dont want their children watching the violence then they shouldnt buy the videos, or they should change the channel and not ruin it for the people who dont mind the violence with their whining. If they were to cancel all things violent then they would have to ca ncel the news and most cartoons.The article has a very effective opening that draws in the reader with a rhetorical question and conversational tone but as the reader reads on it starts to get more serious and less effective. When the conversational tone stops and she starts to try and prove her point, the lack of solid evidence doesnt convince the reader. So, overall the article has a very effective opening but loses its impact at the end.