Comparative Analysis
Debate has sparked among residents of the East Park area after the ruination of a “freshly painted” wall of an East Park Café. The editorial piece ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’ written by the editor, published in ‘The Daily Tribute’ 16th July 2009, is written in response to this “puerile cultural vandalism”. The editor slams council officials and the local government for “[dragging their] heels for months” and then “[refusing] to offer support” to local businesses and individuals. One day after the publication of this editorial piece, Michaela Whitehouse, a member of the East Park council, writes in response to the article. Whitehouse intends to set the facts straight and to “address [the editors] less enlightened remarks” through her angry yet controlled tone.
The editor presents his article with the bold, cliché title ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’ capturing the attention of ‘The Daily Tribute’ readers. Accompanied by a picture dominated by “lurid and tasteless sexual diagrams and obscenities”, the editor is able to establish the demoralising effects of graffiti. The graffiti resembling the “ugly” from the title, demonstrates that these “thugs” are not interested in what their finished product looks like; they will continue to “desecrate” properties at their own accord.
The opening paragraph of the editorial embeds strong and attention grabbing language enforcing the difference between hardworking “entrepreneurs” and “dual-mortgage bearers” and “thugs” who “desecrate” the freshly painted wall of “heavily pregnant” women. The editor not only raises sympathy for Patrick and his “heavily pregnant wife” who spent “their one day off that week restoring the wall”, but also encourages anger to be formed towards the graffiti artists for their acts of “selfishness”.
Whitehouse’s letter of response condemns the editor in a formal and