On November 8, 2000, the Herald Sun published a letter to the editor under the heading ‘Humans need the protection’. It was written by a Ms Jacky MacDonald and was published on page 16.

The headline is relatively low-key. It makes no mention of sharks and its is only once the letter has been read that it becomes apparent that the headline is an implied comparison. Thus the headline actually suggests that though sharks are a protected species, it is humans who should have this status. On first reading, however, this is not clear, and the headline is only likely to attract reader interest to the extent that they want to find out what the letter is about as its headline does not tell them.

The letter itself is very short, a mere two paragraphs. Each paragraph is only two sentences long.

Its brevity is likely to add to its effectiveness as its author can be fairly sure that the whole letter will be read.

The piece opens with a statement which is almost a question, ‘I find it very difficult to understand why sharks have more protection than humans.’ The implied question is ‘Why should this be so?’ and the suggested position is that sharks should not enjoy this privilege. The letter was published two days after a fatal shark attack in Western Australian and six weeks after two similar attacks in South Australia. It relies on the readers’ knowledge of these events.

The paragraph ends with the question, ‘How many people does this shark have to kill before something is done?’ Questions are a generally useful device to encourage reader engagement with a topic. In this case, the question is a particularly interesting one. It draws attention to the three deaths that have already occurred and suggests that more are likely. Its phrasing also suggests that the one shark is responsible ‘How many people does this shark have to kill …’ The author may actually be referring to the species rather than a particular shark, and this would in fact be accurate as experts have ruled out the possibility that the one animal could have been responsible for all of these attacks. However, what the exact phrasing does is particularise the focus of reader fear to one shark. It plays on reader fears of the mythical rogue shark, the animal that develops a particular taste for human flesh and subsequently deliberately hunts human beings. This phrasing also diverts any possible reader concerns about whole species considerations. The question implies we are not discussing a species, we are discussing one fish, and therefore ecological or conservation issues do not come into play.

This question serves another purpose as well. It suggests, as already noted, that many more people are likely to die. Statistically this is not accurate, as experts have claimed that on average no more than one person a year dies due to shark attack in Australian waters. However, facts are not being used to advance this argument. Whether accurate or not, the clear implication that many more people will die is likely to create fear in readers and lead them to support the removal of protected species status from great white shark.

The second paragraph opens with a speculation which is actually an implied criticism of the shark’s protected species status. ‘I would have thought humans had more rights than a fish’. The implication here is clearly that human beings should have more rights. Note again the reference to ‘a fish’. Here the author is not simply particularising, she is also trivialising. She is putting the lives of human beings on the scale against the life of a, by implication, mere fish. Imagine if she had referred to the shark as a ‘marine monster’ or a ‘denizen of the deep’. Though each of these phrases creates fairly negative images, they are not belittling in the way the phrase ‘a fish’ is.

The second paragraphs ends with a rhetorical question. ‘After all, who doesn’t eat flake?’ The clearly anticipated response is, ‘No one.’ The implication of this question is, "If we are all already eating shark as flake, why should this animal enjoy protection from hunting when it kills human beings?’ The response being shaped is that it should not enjoy this protection. The whole intent of this last paragraph is to place shark in a clearly inferior position to human beings. Shark are merely ‘a fish’. As a fish, they are already food for human beings, the humble and commonly consumed ‘flake’.

The author’s argument is a gross simplification. It ignores the fact that the species of shark consumed as ‘flake’ are not great white shark. It ignores other facts as well, such as that the shark hunted as food are not vulnerable or endangered species. It also ignores any ecologically based argument that might be put in the great white shark’s defence, such as its important position within its ecosystem.

The letter makes one point simply and clearly. People are more important than fish/sharks. The same point is made in each paragraph using quite similar devices. The simplicity of the message and its appeal to commonly held anthropocentric values is likely to make it appealing to many readers.

Discussion of the language used in a newspaper analysis.

The analysis is titled ‘Blue water, white death’

It was written by Michelle Pountney and published in the Herald Sun on November 11, 2000 on page 25.

The article is an interesting example of a piece which essentially attempts to reassure the public, while at the same time displaying some sensationalist features which seem intended to attract reader interest. These sensationalist features are likely to produce fear in the reader and thus are at odds with what appears to be the overall intention of the piece - to reduce reader anxiety about shark attack.

The headline is very vivid and likely to generate fear in readers. It highlights the contrast between the appeal of ‘blue water’ ocean beaches and the frightening possibility of being taken by a shark, ‘white death’. It is very likely to attract readers’ interest and encourage them to continue with the article. Its interest value is strengthened by the accompanying photographs. One is a front view of a shark rising out of the water with its mouth open and large, jagged teeth clearly visible. It is a very confronting photograph. Its capacity to disturb readers is heightened by its similarity to some of the promotional material used for the 1970s blockbuster movie, Jaws. The two other photographs recall two of the recent deaths in Australian waters from shark attacks. One shows a smiling young man whom the caption indicates was on his honeymoon when taken by a shark. This is likely to generate significant reader sympathy and to encourage them to identify with victims of shark attacks.

The three opening paragraphs are a strong appeal to the average Australian holiday-maker. Summer is ‘on the horizon’. ‘Australian families’ are presented as looking forward to their beach holiday in their ‘hundreds of thousands’. They are vividly described with the ‘stinging hot sand under their feet’. This is a strong appeal to common experience and the general attraction that seaside holidays have for many Australians. It is quietly stressed that this is a family experience, one enjoyed by ‘men, women and children’. The apparent innocence of this experience, its typicality and the vulnerability of those who share it is then brought into sharp contrast with their ‘one big fear’ - by implication, shark attack. The reader is encouraged to identify with this situation and to share this fear.

The next six paragraphs recall the details of the three recent shark attack deaths in Australian waters. Names, dates and locations are given. Sympathy and fear are encouraged via these details. One victim was a ‘honeymooner’, another was a ‘teenager … dragged off his surfboard.’ The violence of these deaths and the danger of these sharks is emphasised. One of the victims is described as being ‘mauled in the shallows’, another is taken by ‘a massive shark’.

Throughout these paragraphs there is a tension set up between the reassurances of the ‘experts’ - ‘the three recent attacks are a coincidence and sharks are not turning to people for food’ and the supposed fears of the general public - ‘are … [sharks] attacking humans more often’.

The next six paragraphs give the views of one key expert, Mr John West, curator of the Australian Shark Attack File. The whole emphasis of these quotes, all of which are either direct citations or apparently detailed paraphrasings, is to reassure readers. The last paraphrase in this section has Mr West urging swimmers not to ‘fall victim to the "Jaws mentality"’. The implication is that though sharks can be dangerous, there is no reason for a panic-driven over-reaction.

The next nine paragraphs give details of the number of shark attacks in Australian waters since 1791 and contrast the number of human deaths due to sharks with those from other sources, such as bee stings, lightning strikes and accidental drowning. The source of this information is apparently Mr West. Given Mr West’s position as curator of the Australian Shark Attack File people are likely to accept this information as accurate. The paragraphs also suggest that the risk posed by sharks is relatively slight. Again, given the reliability of the source and the detail of the statistics supplied the reader is likely to accept that the risk of being fatally attacked by a shark is very small.

The piece concludes firstly with a reference to the vulnerability of a sharks as a ‘protected species’ whose numbers are still declining due to their ‘degenerating ecosystem’ and then moves on to give information about the electronic shark-repellent devices that are being developed. The likely intention of these references is to create some reader sympathy for sharks and also to reassure readers that with these repellent devices they will be able to take some effective action to protect themselves.

The order of presentation in this piece is quite important. Although in terms of column-centimetres, it would appear that the article is mainly concerned to reassure readers, the order in which the material is presented does not support this aim. The disturbing headline and photographs, the fear-inducing lead paragraphs and the detail supplied about recent shark attack victims are all likely to create anxiety in the reader. In any newspaper article first impressions are extremely important. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, readers’ initial impressions shape their subsequent reactions. Secondly, many readers do not progress beyond the opening paragraphs and so the first impressions they form may literally be the only impressions they form. Thus, in this article, it appears that the newspaper’s desire to prompt reader interest via the more sensational elements of the shark story cuts across its desire to allay community fears.