Explorers, or boys messing about? Either way, taxpayer gets rescue bill? Title ridicules ‘explorers’ and makes them seem immature through the use of ‘boys’ Helicopter duo plucked from life-raft after Antarctic crash? Use of ‘plucked’ makes the explorers seem useless and helpless. Aims to embarrass them and make the reader scoff at how humorous it sounds for someone to be plucked from a crash Their last expedition ended in farce when the Russians threatened to send in military planes to intercept them as they tried to cross into Siberia via the icebound Bering Strait.?
‘Ended in farce’ – Makes it seem like their expedition was a joke The men were plucked from the icy waters by a Chilean naval ship after a nine-hour rescue which began when Mr. Brooks contacted his wife, Jo Vestey, on his satellite phone asking for assistance. The rescue involved the Royal Navy, the RAF and British Coastguards.? ‘Chilean naval ship’ and ‘Involved the Royal Navy’ – Introduction of another two nations (along with Russia) makes the event seem very large and dramatic as entire nations are dealing with it opposed to maybe local police.
Reader feels embarrassed for ‘the men’ as their exploration was halted and had to be dealt by the Navy. This infers that the journey was ill planned and thought out. “Last night there was resentment in some quarters that the men’s adventure had cost the taxpayers of Britain and Chile tens of thousands of pounds”? ‘tens of thousands of pounds’ – Large sum enrages reader and emphasises their stupidity for costing the taxpayers this large amount of money. No exact figure or number is given which adds to ambiguity increasing the effect of reader being enraged.
I assume that this has been done on purpose in order to ridicule the explorers further. Experts questioned the wisdom of taking a small helicopter – the four-seater Robinson R44 has a single engine – into such a hostile environment.? Use of jargon makes writer sound knowledgeable contrasting against the boys But Ms Vestey claimed she did not know what the pair were up to, describing them as “boys messing around with a helicopter”? ‘Ms. Vestey claimed’ – Use of information and facts, adds trustworthiness to article, which helps it conform to its genre.
Contrasts the bias and negative view writer has had on the men The drama began at around 1am British time when Mr Brooks, 42, and 40-year-old Mr Smith, also known as Q, ditched into the sea 100 miles off Antarctica, about 36 miles off Smith Island, and scrambled into their life-raft? Providing the reader with the ages of these men makes the reader feel even more embarrassment for them. The reader questions their exact motives and why they do not have other things to do with their life. Example questions that could be generated by reader are: Are they rich?
Retired? Insane? etc. ?Adds humour to article as it is so absurd Both men are experienced adventurers. Mr Brooks, a property developer from London, has taken part in expeditions to 70 countries in 15 years. He has trekked solo to Everest base camp and walked barefoot for three days in the Himalayas. He has negotiated the white water rapids of the Zambezi river by kayak and survived a charge by a silver back gorilla in the Congo. He is also a qualified mechanical engineer and pilot.? Placement of these facts is important.
If they were placed at the beginning of the article, the readers may have interpreted the event as unlucky and misfortunate. However, upto this point the writer has created the image that these explorers were just boys messing about and chose to reveal these important facts to the reader LATER after this image has been set up. Despite their experience, it is not for the first time they have hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.? This paragraph implies that they do not learn from their mistakes.
This cancels out all the good things they have done which returns the boys to look like boys messing about But they were forced to call a halt after the Russian authorities told them they would scramble military helicopters to lift them off the ice if they crossed the border? ‘But’ cancels out all the good they have done yet again. Similar to the point above The wisdom of the team’s latest adventure was questioned by, among others, Gunter Endres, editor of Jane’s Helicopter Markets and Systems, who said: “I’m surprised they used the R44. I would not use a helicopter like that to go so far over the sea.
It sounds like they were pushing it to the maximum”.? Use of quote adds reliability and credibility to article. ? The quote is said by an expert, the fact that an expert is going against the men makes it seem as they are anything but experienced and knowledgeable. They are not legitimate or professional explorers they are just boys messing about A spokesman for the pair said it was not known what had gone wrong. The flying conditions had been “excellent”? ‘The flying conditions had been “excellent”‘ – The implication that the accident was the explorer’s fault is present here. Makes them seem further foolish unprepared and plain stupid.