The article by Sarrah le Marquand, ‘Apathy wins flag debate’ appears in the tabloid of The Advertiser (February 2, 2013), and online at ‘The Punch: Australia’s best conversation’, under a different title, ‘Flagging This Change is not unAustralian’. This political opinion is to remove the Union Jack from the Australian flag. This is an important topic, as National flag’s construct symbolic meaning, identity and “pride” of country (Fozdar, Spittles & Harlety, 2014, p. 2). As a political writer, Sarrah le Marquand's career has been in the entertainment industry, soap operas, for The Daily Telegraph, for film and as an editor for columnist features’ (News Limited, 2014).
Both the tabloid and online version reach a wide range of audiences’. Study by Richardson and Stanyer (2011 p. 1000); found that readers’ are more likely to leave comments, on online articles’. By creating a direct dialogue and relationship with her audience, for example in her fourth paragraph, ‘those who are lobbying to change the Australian flag are disgraceful’ and ‘Our diggers died under our flag’, by referencing isolated individual opinions, le Marquand reference of online comments, decreases the validity of a “political” article. As a political writer, le Marquand must appeal to the triad of pathos, logos and ethos. Using a combination of these devices, she would successfully change the audience's opinion to remove the union jack from the Australian flag (Mshvenieradze, 2013, p. 1939).
Le Marquand opens her discussion with an unsubstantiated generalisation, ‘FOR a country obsessed with home improvement’, implying that all Australian people are interested in renovating their homes. This overgeneralization excludes people who rent their homes, live in housing trust, can't afford to renovate, are studying and the 2.5% Indigenous Australians’ who are living in poverty conditions (Fien, Charlesworth, Lee, Baker, Frice & Morris, 2011, p. 344 - 346). From this, it can be concluded that the article is written towards those who can afford or are interested in renovating their homes. From this introduction, le Marquand gives the reader a visual image of their own homes. Using highly persuasive language such as ‘sprucing up our residences’, she employs the device pathos.
In le Marquand's subsequent paragraphs, she attempts to convince her audience to consider changing the national emblem through a logical reasoning, known as logos. She uses the Olympic Games and online comments’ to support her argument by using repetitive rhetorical questioning of Australian "ideologies". 'With those in favor of adopting a Union Jack-free flag promptly accused of being what else?’ ‘You want to change our flag?’ and ‘You refuse to grovel before the British Commonwealth?’ These aggressive accusations where le Marquand expects no real answer, gives the article a sarcastic tone. The rhetorical questions are frequently responded with colloquial language. For example, 'Upgrading to a flag that isn’t...