Thursday, 3 March 2022

An analysis of the article 'Save The Planet: Kill Yourself'

Precis - the article positions the reader in a deliberately bleak and nihilistic mode of address, that reminds them that everything they do is making the world worse, and the world would be better off if the reader were dead



It's hard to get a more direct (and confrontational) mode of address than this...


What issues involving regulation does this article throw up?

This article, if read literally is essentially asking the audience to commit suicide. This breaks journalistic regulations in the UK, and could potentially lead to harm for the audience, especially if they are vulnerable and depressed.

However, this is NOT intended to be a suggestion, but is a provocative thought experiment.


How does this article use positioning to anchor its ideological perspective?

The audience are positioned in a supermarket check out que, a normal, everyday relatable scenario.

Some of the things we are unwittingly doing include:

  • Encouraging damaging farming practices, such as devoting land to monocultures of corn, which leads to a lack of biodiversity and intensive pesticide use
  • Using iPhones, and the minerals within them causes conflict and destruction of central African countries
  • Non-recyclable plastics pollute very slowly degrading in landfills
  • Magazine ink, even when recycled is damaging to the environment and waterways
  • Microplastics end up in the ocean killing animals

Adbusters presents many alarmist, controversial and nightmarish ideas. Yet when it comes to offering solutions, it often remains quiet. The only solution in this article is to "create alternative models of consumption", which offers us no hint of hoe to actually change the world. Is it simply saying that it's unrealistic to even start to change the world around us? How are we supposed to do anything?


A textual analysis of the 'Save The Planet' double page spread

MES: complete lack of images, black and white text and often sophisticated lexis give this article a gravity and seriousness that the rest of the magazine lacks. It is miserable, and there are absolutely no distraction