The debate about shark culling in Australia has sparked controversy in the media. The Australian Marine Conservative Society (AMCS) have published an online article, “Save our sharks” (accessed on the 3/5/2016). In their article, they contend with a mostly reverent tone their concerns regarding the culling of sharks and the impact it has. On the other hand, in Laura Banks’ opinion piece, “When sharks eats people, it is time to cull” was published in the Daily Telegraph (13/8/2015). She argues in a sarcastic tone that when sharks “eat people”, there needs to be a solution.

AMCS speak to those of their readers who also believe that “shark nets and drumlins” kill endangered and “threatened shark species” are “unnecessary”. The expert opinion from Professor Jessica Meeuwig is used to position these readers to agree further and may motivate them to help reduce shark culling in Australia. The use of statistics such as “97% of sharks” being caught “since 2011” with the use of drum lines may make readers furious as sharks are getting killed in huge numbers. Readers are positioned to agree with AMCS as they use statistics from an analysis of Queensland’s shark control program. The readers may consider that Professor Meeuwig is knowledgable and that AMCS know the details of shark culling.

In addition, AMCS use words such as “vulnerable," “migratory” and “critically endangered” to describe the great white sharks to position the reader to feel sympathetic. The appeal to emotions is used to make readers agree with AMCS as the sharks are “threatened species”. Also, AMCS give possible solutions to their readers because they aim to make their readers consider to help reduce shark culling. AMCS use phrases such as “alternative… already exist” which may make readers realise what they can start doing to help. Readers who oppose the culling of sharks are positioned to be thankful towards “surf lifesavers” and those who do “aerial spotting with helicopters” as these people have already “employed” the alternatives.

The image next to AMCS’s article towards the end of the piece supports one of their arguments which “recommend” readers to “improve” the knowledge about sharks. The image shows a lot of people on the beach holding up signs such as “stop” to show their viewpoint of the culling of sharks. The readers who also hold the same viewpoint- who disapprove of sharks. The readers who also hold the same viewpoint- who disapprove of shark culling- may be motivated to join the petition. The number of people on the beach shows the number of people who care enough to get out onto the beach and fight for what they believe in. The readers are encouraged to do similar thing. The other image at the start of the AMCS’s article is their group’s logo. Readers who browsing online may notice this logo and consider to read the online article. The logo, along with the short, bold title catch the reader’s attention. On the other hand, the image in Bank’s article supports her viewpoint, she believes there needs to be a “permanent solution” to sharks who “eat people”. There is a big shark sign that needs “Beach closed” which supports one of her arguments that “no one” would live on the coast as people would be too scared of sharks. Bank’s image looks haunted which positions the readers to consider the possible outcome if sharks “won”.

Banks starts off her opinion piece by using a number of examples of people who died of shark attacks. She uses names such as Tadashi Nakaham, Craig Ison and Matt Lee to position her readers to think about how surfers who were “enjoying the beauty and tranquility” of the ocean were killed or close to getting killed by sharks. Readers who have experienced a similar situation or know someone who has been in a shark attack are positioned to relate to Bank’s viewpoint and agree. Furthermore, Banks uses the fear of people may have on sharks as a way to convince them that “sharks have no place destroying” human lives and livelihoods. Similarly, AMCS use the appeal to emotions to try to make their readers sympathise for the great white sharks. By using an attacking tone, readers may agree as she seems passionate about human lives more than sharks.

In addition, Bank’s uses rhetorical questions unlike AMCS, in the hope to make the readers feel like there is no other option but to agree with her. Banks speaks to her readers in the hope to convince them by saying “would that be ok?”. The reader is positioned to think about their loved ones in a “murderous attack” by sharks so that they can realise how the “predators” are “ready to cull humans”. The language used by Banks is different to those used by AMCS. However, AMCS and Banks both use statistics to make their readers think that they are knowledgeable in the issue.

Banks explains that sharks “more than 5 long” “stalk” the North coast. This may position the readers who fear sharks to be shocked. In addition, Banks tells her readers that there needs to be a “permanent solution” similar to AMCS. Readers are motivated to “find” a “solution” as Banks refers to them as “a community”. Readers who support the culling of sharks may feel included and hence agree.

Both Banks and AMCS use statistics, appeal to emotion/fear and position solutions in order to get their readers to agree with them. However, Banks also uses rhetorical questions, real-life examples and one image while AMCS also use expert opinion from Professor Meeuwig and two images. AMCS contend their concerns about shark culling. Banks contends that a solution must be “found” when sharks “stalk” coastlines.