Paper 1: Sample Response (Justin Gatlin)

Guiding question: How does the author use language to characterize Justin Gatlin?

            “The Sun’s” online news article titled “Usain Bolt sunk as drugs cheat Justin Gatlin ruins golden goodbye by storming to 100m gold” narrates the events of the 2017 World 100m men’s championship: an event which, much to the dismay of the author and crowd, was won by the American Justin Gatlin. The author informs avid sports fans that this race was meant to be a leaving party for Usain Bolt – thus, an event which was for him to win – but Gatlin effectively ‘gatecrashed’ the event, with the subtext being that he may have cheated in this race too to win.  The author charaterises Gatlin as the undesired champion of the 100m final and casts suspicion upon Gatlin’s victory, effectively questioning the legitimacy of the scandalous athlete.

            The author firstly characterizes Justin Gatlin as the undesired winner of the World Championship to epitomize the notion that he imposed himself upon Bolt’s ‘farewell party’ and defied what was perceived to be the entire tenet of the race: an event to pay homage to Usain Bolt. Through the emphatic description of the crowd’s reaction to Gatlin’s victory, the author effectively characterises Gatlin as an unwanted champion. By writing that the crowd was “venting their fury” at Gatlin, the author established a vehement tone, bringing in a very aggressive and anti-Gatlin perspective. “Venting” has very angry and passionate connotations which further emphasises how undesired Gatlin’s victory was: the audience emphatically expressed their dismay at him. Furthermore, the author’s narrow scope of focus on the negative reactions to Gatlin’s victory was unwanted – the author writes that the crowd was “booing” and unrelentingly abused Gatlin with “jeers and abuse.” These words all have very strongly negative connotations, intensifying the anti-Gatlin message that the author is conveying, but what is more interesting regarding the author’s use of language is his use of omission. The author does not focus on any positive reaction – apart from Bolt’s congratulatory message — to Gatlin’s victory, thus influencing the reader and positioning them to also deem Gatlin’s victory as unwanted and unwarranted. The entire audience and the author seem rather disparaging of Gatlin which biases the reader’s understanding of Gatlin, positioning readers to believe he is indeed the undesired victor.

            Not only does the author present Gatlin as an unwanted champion, but the author also characterises him as an intruder through the use of words with aggressive and violent connotations. It’s one thing for someone to defy the expectations of the people, but it’s another thing to purposely and assertively impose yourself on someone’s farewell party.  The author paints Gatlin as the latter by essentially characterizing him as an uninvited guest of the race, a “gatecrasher.” The author writes that “Gatlin ruins (Bolt’s) golden goodbye by storming…” in the title of their article which immediately creates a very negative impression of Gatlin through the connotations of “ruins” and “stormed.”  Both of these words have deeply negative and infuriating connotations: in the next bolded sentence, the author swaps “ruins” with “shatters” which further characterises Gatlin as a very assertive gatecrasher as not only does “shatters” have largely violent connotations, but also the colloquial use of the word adds meaning to how he intrudes. “Shatters” is often used in relation with “dreams’ and this emphasises how Gatlin effectively destroyed the dreams of both the crowd and Bolt – both of who wanted Bolt to win his farewell race – which further paints him an imposter.

            Furthermore, the title of this article along with the author’s explicit mention of Gatlin’s cheating scandals characterise him as a villain, thus questioning the physical legitimacy of Gatlin’s victory by casting suspicion and reasonable doubt on his win. When Gatlin is introduced to readers in the title, it is not as the winner of even ambiguously as an American, but rather as “drugs cheat Justin Gatlin.”  Next, the author, after establishing a basic summary of the 2017 World Championship, dubs Gatlin as an “American doper.”  The author repeatedly attempts to define Gatlin a cheating drug-addict to negatively bias the reader’s opinion of the American athlete. This incessant characterisation of Gatlin as a lying cheater reaches the pinnacle in line 24 where the author quotes the crowd screaming “cheat, cheat, cheat” at Gatlin – the athlete’s achievements and incredible feat of defeating Bolt is neglected by the author who instead attempts to cast suspicion upon Gatlin’s victory. It is known that Gatlin was involved in doping scandal in 2005 and this fact is referenced by the author in line three of the article. By consistently referencing and explicitly mentioning Gatlin’s doping scandals, the author attempts to question the physical legitimacy of Gatlin’s victory.

            However, is a victory legitimate when one has followed all the rules and procedures of the sport or when they win the hearts and approval of the audience? The author not only characterises Gatlin as a questionable character, but also as the ‘untrue winner’ who did not capture the hearts of the audience nor the author. Through the author’s heavy use of omission, readers are only exposed to reasons why Bolt lost the race and not why Gatlin won the race. The author writes that Bolt “paid the price” of the mistake he made early on in the race and this is the reason why he “sunk,” not because Gatlin was the better athlete on this day. Even in the title, Gatlin’s achievements are omitted by writing that “Usain Bolt sunk”: this phrase does not even have Gatlin as the object of the sentence! Bolt’s “woeful start” is the only reason presented by the author as to why Gatlin won the race.  Thus, the author characterises Gatlin as not only unwanted, but also undeserving.  Even after Bolt lost the race, it was him that “took the acclaim of the crowd”: Gatlin was not celebrated because it was perceived that his victory was purely coincidental. The author’s incessant omission of Gatlin’s victory and achievements in both the title and body of their article (i.e. there was not any sign of congratulations nor commendations), the author characterises Gatlin as the undeserving and unloved victor, thus further calling into question Gatlin’s legitimacy.

            In conclusion, Gatlin is characterised as the unwanted, somewhat illegitimate and undeserving champion of the 2017 World Championships, thus undermining the entirety of Gatlin’s achievements. The author positions and influences readers to also be disproving of Gatlin and question or cast suspicion upon the athlete’s victory through the use of connotations, word-choice, omission and other literary devices. “The Sun” is often regarded as analogous to a tabloid so it is important to note that bias is present in this article and much information is withheld: Gatlin’s road to victory following his drug scandal in 2005 and description of how he actually performed in the race is not explained by the author. This article is successful then in its purpose: it forces the reader to question whether Gatlin was a “cheat, cheat, cheat.”

Word count: 1,150