The news angle of the article is people are paying infrastructure but not renewable energies. The cause of this article is probably people’s complaint on electricity price increase. The author's purpose is to disclose that the government had not invested in electricity generation but the money mainly go to poles and wires. The government invested $42 billion for the next five years.
The structure of the article is clear. The lead gives a news hook to tell the main facts: who (clean energy groups) and what (the bill hikes are result from investment in infrastructure not renewable energy). In the next four paragraphs, the journalist supplies details and evidence to support the argument. Then the author interviewed the two sides of the issue- the clean energy council and Policy director. They showed their perspectives and provided more explanations. Following by, there are more details about the increase rate of the price in main cities to prove that the increase is caused by the rise of population. The more people, the higher price. At the last part, the journalist offers solution which is solar energy as the green energy group suggests. The journalist also uses US president Obama's encouragement in the solar energy adopted in residents as an example to persuade Prime Minister Ms Gillard to emphasis in solar energy rather than examine the carbon emission price. The group also advices Ms Gillard apply solar energy at her home.
Although the journalist presents two sides of perspectives to keep balance, the tone of the article is a bit persuaded. Fairness is a significant value in journalism. Australian Laws, codes of act also regular media practitioners to report fairly and accurately. But this journalist broke the rule and showed inclination to the green energy group side. As a result, it is a not a good news story.
Here is the link of the story:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/green-energy-not-reason-for-bill-hikes-20101007-169ev.html
