Introduction

Does the writer Steven Morris, present the men as explorers or boy messing about?

Comment on point of view of the writer and how he uses facts and opinions. What words and

phrases present the men in a certain way? (Be specific- verbs? Adjectives? Adverbs?)

Character impression Tone As we begin to read the article Steven Morris has written, our

first impressions we get are very one sided. He described the boys more like "boys messing

about" rather than professional explorers. It then shifts our opinions to make us see the

other side of the men and their background experiences. In this essay I will explore why he

portrayed the men as he did and how he did it effectively. I will also share my opinionated

thoughts and feelings about the men. If we start at the very beginning of the article, the title

already starts our questioning about whether these men are real explorers. We understand

that the taxpayers are the one who are suffering for the acts of the two individuals. Also the

subheading also implies childlike behavior, "duo plucked from life-raft". ...read more.

Middle

This wins our vote over the men's unreasonable decision; this makes us believe that they

didn't know what they were doing. "He said they were both in the life-raft but were okay and

could I call the emergency people." This quote is what he told his wife; the writer then

mocks him for it. He uses what he said against him to make Mr. Brooks sound unthankful

and unappreciative. Mr. Brooks uses the word "emergency people", this implies that he

expects to be rescued and he believes that it wasn't his fault. This not true because we know

that he could have avoided any sort of problems by not doing what he did; he also shouldn't

expect anyone to come rescue him when he was just reenacted something he has already

done before. Then the writers build on the seriousness of the men's actions continuing when

he explains what lengths the rescue teams and crews had to go through. "The royal navy's

ice patrol... 180 miles away surveying uncharted waters, began steaming towards the

scene." ...read more.

Conclusion

This can be cross-referenced to the event that the article was based on. This really helps the

writer to interpret the truth about these men. We are humored even further by how the

writer explains how a "spokesman for the pair" not knowing what had happened, stated that

the flying conditions had been "excellent!" This portrays the men even further like young

boys rather then any sort of professionals. Also the use of the word "spokesman" also makes

us believe the he or she is not a very reliable source. In my opinion the writer is extremely

correct about the men and their unnecessary actions. I also agree with the title, they are

boys just messing about. They believe that they can do whatever they want without any

consequences but that's not true. The men cost the taxpayers thousand and thousand of

pounds worth for a rescue mission. This is not right and they should be stopped; I believe

that the writer Steven Morris helps us see the men's true colours. I feel sympathetic to any

taxpayer who has to deal with men who act like complete children; then expect the

taxpayers to clean up after them, even for their mistakes.

Explorers, or boys messing about? Either way, taxpayer gets rescue bill1. Title ridicules 'explorers' and makes them seem immature through the use of 'boys'

Helicopter duo plucked from life-raft after Antarctic crash1. use of 'plucked' makes the explorers seem useless and helpless. Aims to embarass 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.1. '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.1. '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 pounds1. '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 given which adds to ambiguity increasing the effect of reader being enraged. I assume this is probably 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.1. Use of jargon makes writer sound knowledgable 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"1. '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 hada 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-raft1. 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 don't have other things to do with their life. Example questions that are 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.1. 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.

1. 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 border1. '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 wouldn't use a helicopter like that to go so far over the sea. It sounds like they were pushing it to the maximum".1. Use of quote adds reliability and credibility to article 

2. 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 knowledgable. 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"1. '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.