Hello, and thank you for joining me for today's English lesson.

My name's Mrs. Butterworth, and I cannot wait to get started today, because today we are reading an opinion article by the writer Charlie Brooker.

And I love his writing.

It's really witty and sarcastic and I love the topics that he covers.

So hopefully, you'll enjoy that, too.

And then we're going to be using his writing to look at how we can create our own effective rhetorical questions.

So lots to get through today.

Let's get started.

So in this lesson, you will articulate a personal response to an opinion article.

And you will understand what makes an effective rhetorical question and use this understanding to create your own.

But before we delve into the main parts of this lesson, let's look at some key words that will help with our understanding of the text and you may see them used throughout the lesson.

So keep your eyes peeled.

So these words are irony, sarcasm, humorous, popular culture, and critique.

Now, irony is where something happens that is the opposite to what is expected.

So you'll notice in this Charlie Brooker article, he uses a lot of irony.

He also uses sarcasm, which means to mock or be humorous, and it's usually by saying the opposite of what you mean.

So again, you'll notice this in the article that Charlie Brooker may be presenting something that could be seen as serious, but actually he's mocking and making a point.

Now, humorous is to be funny or entertaining.

We've also got this word here, popular culture.

Now, popular culture refers to things like music, films, or trends and fashions that are popular at a given time.

So for example, Charlie Brooker references popular culture in his references to video games and to TV.

So we think about that being popular culture.

And to critique something is to assess or evaluate it.

So the outline of our lesson looks like this.

We're going to start by reading Charlie Brooker's article, which is titled "Bring Back Hanging?", with that question mark.

And then we're going to look at creating effective rhetorical questions.

So let's start by exploring that article.

So as I've said, today we are reading an article by one of my favourite non-fiction writers, Charlie Brooker.

Now, he is a British writer and television presenter known for his use of sarcasm and irony.

So he doesn't just write newspaper articles, he's also presented his own TV show and he's even created a drama series called "Black Mirror".

So he's a very interesting writer and he uses a lot of sarcasm and irony to put his points across.

He's also known for blending dark humour and social commentary.

So you'll notice in the article that we are reading today, it's quite a serious, shocking subject, but he uses humour to kind of comment on it and comment on people's responses around the topic.

So, see if you can spot that today, that kind of dark humour alongside that social commentary.

He's very interested in popular culture.

You know, he talks a lot about video games and computer games and TV as well.

And he very often references this and critiques this in his writing.

So again, see if you can spot that in the article today.

Now, this information about what Charlie Brooker is interested in and his style of writing, this information can be used to begin making predictions about the text.

So in a moment, I would like you to discuss what are your expectations of the article and what do you expect to find? So use this information to think about tone, subject matter, maybe ideas, and to help you with that discussion.

So, you're gonna need to pause the video to give yourself time to discuss those questions.

Or if you are working by yourself, you may wish to quietly think to yourself or jot down some ideas.

But pause the video to give yourself time to do that, now.

Thank you for your suggestions, everyone.

Now, remember some of those comments 'cause they're going to help you with the next slide.

So, we've already begun to make predictions about the text, and we can also use the title to further those predictions and begin drawing some conclusions.

So we already know a bit about our writer, Charlie Brooker, his style, his interests, and now we can be a bit more specific by using the title of the article.

So let's look at the title and the subheading.

So it says, "Bring back hanging? Only a wuss would want to do that.

We should bring back the saw instead.

If you want to reinstate the death penalty, go for a means of execution that provides maximum agony and maximum publicity." Okay, so let's just think about this.

What is the subject of the article? We can think about knowing what we do about Brooker, do you think this is a serious article? And what might be the purpose of this article? And finally, what tone are you expecting Brooker to use in this article? So now's the time to pause the video to give yourself time to discuss those questions.

You may wish to think quietly to yourself or jot down some ideas, but really think about those questions and the title and those predictions that we can make.

Pause the video and off you go.

Okay, some excellent predictions there.

So it's interesting, isn't it, just from this limited amount of information we can start to think about our expectations of the text and some predictions which will help with our understanding later on when we come to read the full article.

So well done, everyone, this is a really good reading habit to get into.

So let's just feed back some ideas on those specific questions.

So, what is the subject of the article? Well, we can see here these words hanging, death penalty, and execution.

Pretty brutal words.

Now these words suggest that the subject is the death penalty and capital punishment, okay? So we know what the article is going to be about.

So we already know our subject just from the title.

So do we think this is going to be a serious article knowing what we do about Brooker? Well, we've already said, haven't we, that Brooker is known for writing humorous articles.

So we can start to make assumptions that this isn't necessarily going to be a serious piece, even though the topic is serious.

Now, the word wuss, he uses "only a wuss would want to do that," also suggests that this will be humorous.

And I think it's important to acknowledge that although Charlie Brooker is using humour, he's still making quite a serious and important point about capital punishment.

And I think that's what makes this quite clever, is, yes, it's not a very serious piece, but it is talking about a serious subject and using humour to talk about that.

And then what is the purpose? So as we have said previously, Brooker is known for his social commentary and commenting on society.

So this may be an opinion article about punishment and popular culture.

And then the final question there, what tone are you expecting Brooker to use in this article? Well, we know that he uses irony and sarcasm.

We said that in the previous slide, and here we've got that repetition of maximum, maximum agony, maximum publicity, and this would suggest that it is going to have a mocking or cynical tone.

And I think this is really important when we think about irony and sarcasm.

That it's about making a point.

So he's using irony and sarcasm alongside his social commentary to make a serious point about the death penalty and capital punishment.

So as you read the article later on, really think about this, that yes, he's using humour, but what is he trying to show us or reveal about death penalty, capital punishment, and society in general? So before we do any close reading, let's just read the first section together.

So as we read really think about the tone and ideas that Brooker is putting forward.

So should we start reading together? Great, follow along.

"The death penalty debate refuses to die, a bit like 17-year-old Willie Francis, who in 1946 was strapped into a chair at Louisiana State Penitentiary and electrocuted, only to wind up screaming for mercy from within his leather hood, selfishly upsetting several onlookers in the process.

The United Kingdom hasn't hanged anyone since 1964, when Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans were simultaneously sent to the gallows, in an audacious end-of-season finale.

In the intervening years, the capital punishment argument has resurfaced now and then, usually in the wake of an especially harrowing murder trial, when the mob's a bit twitchy.

But it has always been a bit of a non-debate.

Proponents of the death penalty, nooselovers or danglefans as they like to be known, often come across as a bit old-fashioned, as though they're opposed to progress in all of its forms, and might as well be arguing in favour of fewer crisp flavours and slower Wi-Fi.

This fusty impression isn't helped when every news article about hanging is illustrated with vintage black and white photographs of Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis, as if tying a rope around someone's neck and dropping them through a trapdoor in the hope of causing a fatal bilateral fracture of the C2 vertebrae is the kind of behaviour that belongs in the past." Okay, so we've read the start of the article and I'd like you to decide, please, which three words describe Charlie Brooker's tone in the article? So A, B, C, or D.

Pick your three answers now.

Okay, so who's feeling confident? Should we ready for the answer? Okay, here we go.

It is B, C, and D, humorous, ironic, and sarcastic.

So solemn there, we've got that word solemn, which means quite serious and solemn.

Now, as I said, the subject of the capital punishment and the death penalty is a very serious and solemn subject and Charlie Brooker isn't trying to downplay that.

He's trying to highlight that through his humorous, ironic, and sarcastic tone.

So if we think about Brooker's use of irony and sarcasm when he's saying that people arguing to bring back the death penalty seem old-fashioned, but are they really? What he's really saying is, yes, they are old-fashioned and they are ridiculous.

So the idea that he's saying the opposite of what he means to create that kind of irony, that sarcasm, and to mock those people and their ideas.

So it's a really complicated idea, but you can start to see how Brooker is using that to address this serious issue.

So now we're going to look at that first part of the article in a bit more depth.

So I'd like you to look at this small section here and reread it, and then discuss what is the tone of Brooker's introduction and why has he used the adverbs selfishly, and what effect does it create? Okay, pause the video to give yourself time to discuss those ideas or think quietly to yourself.

Pause the video now.

Okay, thank you.

Lots of people picking up on Brooker's tone and star, which is great.

Let's just feedback some of those ideas.

So yes, quite rightly, the tone is humorous, isn't it? So he uses this anecdote and the phrase, "refuses to die", to make light of the serious topic.

But he wants to make light of it to kind of show its seriousness and to kind of show how awful and ridiculous it is.

And again, he uses this word, "selfishly", in a really sarcastic way and to emphasise the brutality of the death penalty.

So if we remember that keyword, sarcastic, it's about kind of saying the opposite of what you mean to make a point or be humorous.

So here, he obviously doesn't think that Willie Francis is selfish.

He's kind of using it to make a point to be sarcastic.

And then this next section here.

So reread this section and then I'd like you to discuss please, what is Brooker referencing here, and how does it add to the sarcastic tone? So as ever, pause the video so you've got time to discuss your ideas or think quietly to yourself.

Off you go.

Okay, great.

Should we feedback some ideas? So, you may have spotted that Brooker is using the language of TV.

So he says this kind of end-of-season finale.

And what that does is it compares the spectacle of the hanging, which is terrible, to show how to a TV show, to show how ridiculous he finds the punishment.

It almost emphasises how awful it is by calling it an end-of-season finale.

And then he used this, "when the mob's a bit twitchy." So in that word he is using exaggerated language to refer to certain members of society.

So when the mob's a bit twitchy.

Okay, and then let's look at this section here.

So you'll need to reread it, and then you'll need to discuss how is Brooker making light of the topic and how does he use comparison to portray those in favour of the death penalty? So again, pause the video to give yourself time to reread and discuss these questions or to think quietly by yourself.

Off you go.

Okay, so great work on this.

Lots of you getting that use of sarcasm, that use of humour and irony, which is quite complicated.

So well done for picking up on that.

So let's just feedback some of these things.

So he uses these phrases, nooselovers or danglefans, and obviously these people aren't known as that, but he's using this to kind of make them seem silly and to show how ridiculous the behaviour is.

And they are a play on words associated with hanging.

So they add to this humorous tone.

And again, he compares this argument, the death penalty and the people that argue this, to trivial arguments.

So he says, "in favour of fewer crisp flavours and slower Wi-Fi".

So what he's doing, he's emphasising how he views those people who are for the death penalty.

That the way they argue these things, that they downplay the argument to do with the death penalty as if they were arguing crisp flavours and slower Wi-Fi.

And through this, he's saying, "Well actually, this is really serious and it's talking about people's lives," but these people argue about it like it's just something really trivial.

So again, Brooker is really cleverly using those comparisons and language to elevate the topic, how he feels about it and how he feels about the people he is referring to.

Okay, A, B, C, or C, which inference best describes Brooker's view on hanging? Are you going to pick A, B or C? Okay, select your answer now.

Okay, everyone got an answer? I hope so, because the answer is, A, Brooker opposes the idea of hanging as punishment.

And I think that's really important that this is understood.

That although he, in his humour and his sarcasm it might seem like he's saying positive things about hanging, but he's using that tone and that strategy to make a point about how awful and terrible it really is.

Okay, so now it's over to you for the first practise task.

So what I would like you to do is read the rest of the article from, "But now the debate," to the end, "saw or nothing," okay? So you'll find the article in the additional materials, so you'll need to read that in full.

And then what I would like you to do is I would like you to discuss, do you agree or disagree with these statements? And you must explain why.

So here are the statements, let's read them together first.

Charlie Brooker's use of sarcasm and irony effectively highlights the absurdity of the death penalty debate.

The extreme language and graphic imagery in the article are more likely to shock than to persuade readers.

It's an interesting point, isn't it? And using humour to discuss serious topics like the death penalty is inappropriate and disrespectful to victims and their families.

Okay, so when you are ready, pause the video so you've got time to read the article and then discuss whether you agree or disagree with the statements.

As ever, if you're working on your own you may wish to think quietly to yourself or jot down some ideas for the discussion task.

Okay, pause the video and get this completed.

Off you go.

Okay, thank you everybody.

I really hope you enjoyed the article.

I think it's fantastic.

I mean, it is very shocking and the subject is quite controversial, but I think Brooker is very clever in his use of irony and sarcasm to really emphasise and reveal how ridiculous the debate is.

He's almost saying it shouldn't be a debate at all.

Of course, we shouldn't bring back hanging.

So hopefully you picked up on that.

So, two pupils discussed the statement.

So one of our statements from the task is this: Charlie Brooker's use of sarcasm and irony effectively highlights the absurdity of the death penalty debate.

Now Jen says, "I agree.

By proposing ridiculous methods like using a mediaeval saw, he mocks the idea that the death penalty is a civilised solution." But Izzy disagrees.

She says, "I disagree because his exaggerated suggestions can make it hard for readers to take the topic seriously.

These extreme ideas might make the debate seem like a joke and distract from the real issues." So both really good debates there.

Whether agreeing or disagreeing, both Jen and Izzy explain why they agree or disagree and I think that's really effective.

So what I would like you to do, please, is I would like you to discuss who do you agree with more and why? So do you agree more with Jen or with Izzy? And then I'd like you to find other examples from the text to justify your answers, okay? So, who do you agree with more and why? And then go back to the text to find some other examples to justify your answers.

Pause the video so you've got time to complete the feedback task.

Off you go.

Well done, everyone.

Excellent work so far, but we do need to keep it up because we've got the second half of our lesson coming up now, and this is all about creating effective rhetorical questions.

So let's keep going.

Now, rhetorical questions are one of the most used devices in persuasive writing.

So I'm wondering if you've even used them yourself before or seen them used, because they are used a lot.

And they can be really effective, but they need to be used carefully.

So, used too often throughout your writing or in succession and they will lose their impact.

And I think this is really important to understand about rhetorical questions.

You should definitely use them in your writing, but we need to be a bit careful with how they are used to make sure they are really effective and impactful.

And they should always be used to make a point, challenge or provoke thought.

They don't necessarily need an answer.

So what we're going to do now is we're going to look at some examples of rhetorical questions from Brooker's article.

And as we're looking at these, think about what makes them effective and possibly how you could use them in your own writing.

So let's look at this example.

"Instead, it's just a load of vague blah about reinstating the death penalty.

What sort of death penalty? The gallows? The chair? The gas chamber? Come on, this is the internet." So I'd like you to discuss, please, what is effective about Brooker's use of rhetorical questions and how do they help him achieve his purpose? So pause the video so you can discuss these questions or think quietly to yourself.

Off you go.

Okay, great! Yes, lots of you picking up on how he is using these rhetorical questions effectively.

So let's feedback some of those suggestions.

So you may have noticed that they are relevant to the subject of the article.

So if we look here, "What sort of death penalty? The gallows? The chair," we couldn't just take those questions out and put them in another piece of writing.

So sometimes with rhetorical questions we put these short questions like, "Don't you wanna take action? Do you? Don't you?" And actually they're not relevant to the subject of the article.

So when we're using rhetorical questions, be thinking, "Could I put this in another article or piece of writing, or is it specific to this?" And you'll notice he uses the quick succession.

Now, you need to be careful with this, but if used effectively it can really create an exaggerated frustrated tone.

And we can see that here in Brooker's work, can't we? And you'll notice that they do not rely on direct address or the use of the pronoun, you.

And this is sometimes a bit of a trap that we can fall into with our rhetorical questions, and it can end up sounding quite accusatory.

Don't you agree? Don't you want to do this? So we need to be a bit mindful of that too, and think about how we can be a bit clever with our rhetorical questions.

Okay, let's look at this one.

"Did I mention the viewers? This is all broadcast live on television, in HD, and even 3D, where available.

Maximum agony, maximum publicity." Now again, I'd like you to discuss, so think about what we said about the last question.

What is effective about Brooker's use of rhetorical questions and how do they help him achieve his purpose? So again, think back to the last rhetorical question and what we said about that and how this might be happening here.

Okay, pause the video, get discussing or thinking quietly to yourself.

Off you go.

Okay, well done everyone.

So some of you really picking up on some of the similarities with the other rhetorical question that we looked at.

So if we just feedback some of those ideas.

So, you'll notice that he uses the question to introduce an idea.

So not only of is is it relevant and specific to his writing, he's actually using it to introduce another idea.

"Did I mention the viewers?" And actually, what he does here is he creates a rapport with the reader.

So it sounds quite almost like conversational, doesn't it? "Did I mention the viewers?" And like his stream of consciousness.

He's not directly addressing the reader or sounding accusatory, he's creating more of a rapport.

And then finally, this really continues the exaggerated absurd tone.

"Did I mention the viewers?" You can almost hear him saying it, can't you, with that exaggerated, frustrated, and absurd tone.

Okay, so you now need to pick A, B, C, or D.

Which of the following is not true? Rhetorical questions.

So which of the following is not true? Rhetorical questions.

Okay, pick A, B, C, or D.

Off you go.

Okay, so hopefully you have picked an answer.

And the answer is, C, always need an article.

Rhetorical questions always need an answer, that is not true.

But let's just look at the right answers.

So rhetorical questions can be used to provoke thought.

Absolutely, and that's what we should be using them to do.

Rhetorical questions are one of the most used devices in persuasive writing, which is why we need to use them carefully and effectively.

And rhetorical questions can be used to create a rapport with the reader, exactly like we have seen Charlie Brooker doing.

Okay, so I'd like you to look at these rhetorical questions and discuss which of the following are the least effective? But why do you think this? Okay, let's read through the questions first and then you can discuss.

So capital punishment is a force of evil.

What do you think? It wasn't until 1964 that hanging was abolished.

Can you believe it? Can you? Instead, it's just a bunch of unclear nonsense about bringing back capital punishment.

What kind of capital punishment? You can at least specify exactly how you want these executions carried out.

Okay, so pause the video so you've got time to discuss which of the following rhetorical questions are the least effective and why? So pause the video to discuss or get thinking, now.

Okay, let's just gather some of those suggestions and feedback.

So, hopefully you picked up on those top two as being the least effective, but the most important thing here is we discuss why.

So, you may have noticed that these questions are ambiguous.

So what do you think? Can you believe it? Can you? Now actually, these rhetorical questions could be used in any piece of writing, couldn't they? So what this means is that they are not specific or relevant to the topic.

So, "what do you think", that could just be placed in any piece of writing.

So it's really important that you're thinking about how your rhetorical questions are specific and relevant to what you are saying, how they're helping you address your topic.

And you'll also notice that they overuse direct address or the pronoun, you.

What do you think? Can you believe it? Can you? And again, this can sound a bit accusatory rather than thought provoking.

And we were talking earlier about this idea of creating a rapport with the audience.

You want your rhetorical questions to be thought provoking and to engage your reader and to invite them in.

You don't want them to feel like they're being told off or you're shouting at them.

So sometimes, overusing direct address can do this.

So what do you think? Can you believe it? We want to kind of move away from that tone.

So, Sam improves this rhetorical question.

So it wasn't until 1964 that hanging was abolished.

Can you believe it? Can you? So Sam now writes, "It wasn't until the swinging '60s that hanging was abolished.

What was swinging exactly? Flares? Music? The hangman's noose?" Really good set of rhetorical questions there.

So, before I give away the answer I'd like you to discuss, please, how has Sam improved the rhetorical questions? Okay, pause the video so you can discuss your answers, now.

Okay, thank you.

It's definitely an improvement, isn't it? And lots of you are picking up on that humour.

Sam's done a really good job here of rewriting that rhetorical question.

Because what Sam's done is these rhetorical questions are now relevant to the subject of the article.

So if we think about flares, music, the hangman's noose, we couldn't put those in any piece of writing, could we? So they're very specific to what is being written.

And Sam has used, like Brooker, that quick succession of questions, which is really effective in creating that exaggerated and humorous tone.

And Sam hasn't relied on the direct address or the use of the pronoun, you.

In fact, it's not in those questions at all anymore, is it? Sam has actually completely got rid of that direct address.

And they create a rapport with the reader, don't they? So it's more conversational, it's more about engaging the reader as opposed to being accusatory or telling your reader off.

"So what was swinging exactly? Flares? Music? The hangman's noose?" It sounds more like a discussion than someone directly telling the reader off.

Okay, so we have two questions here.

I want you to decide A or B, which pupil has created the most effective rhetorical question? Let's read through the answers first and then you can decide whether it is A or B.

"The death penalty is a disgrace.

Don't you agree? Don't you want to act?" And then B, "Why settle for lethal injection when we can jazz things up with a live-streamed execution via drone, complete with colour commentary and a post-death analysis?" Okay, so which pupil has created the most effective rhetorical question? Is it A or B? Pick your answer, now.

Okay, so hopefully, we have all picked B.

Okay, so hopefully you have picked that, because obviously, A, we've got those unspecific questions, "Don't you agree? Don't you want to act?" So they could be put in any piece of writing.

And that overuse of the direct address and the pronoun, you.

So we can see why B is a much more effective rhetorical question.

Okay, so I would like you to do some work now.

So a bit like Sam did earlier.

I would like you to rewrite and improve these rhetorical questions.

The death penalty is outdated.

Don't you agree? And people still believe that hanging should be reinstated.

Are you one of these people? Are you? Okay, so you need to rewrite and improve those rhetorical questions, thinking about everything we've talked about this lesson.

You may even want to revisit some of the rhetorical questions that we looked at to give yourself some inspiration.

But you'll need to gather what you need and then pause the video so you can complete this task.

Off you go.

Okay, thank you everyone.

Hopefully you had a bit of fun with that in recreating those rhetorical questions.

So let's look at Laura's question here.

So Laura has developed this, "The death penalty is as old-fashioned as using a typewriter in the age of smartphones.

Can we all agree it's time to move on?" Okay, so what has Laura done here? Well, we know that the question is specific to the topic.

So if we look at that first sentence, she's talking about the death penalty and she's comparing it to typewriters and smartphones.

So, we couldn't put that in any piece of writing, could we? So it's very specific to the topic.

She hasn't overused direct address or the pronoun, you.

So she's used we, which is a sort of direct address, but it doesn't feel overused or she hasn't used you.

So it's a bit more subtle, it's a bit less accusatory.

And she's created a rapport with the reader.

"Can we all agree it's time to move on?" So like I said, it's more like a discussion.

Laura's including herself in that, so it's less about accusing your reader or feeling like you're telling the reader off.

So she's done everything that she needed to make an effective rhetorical question.

So now, I'd like you to do the same.

So can you use the checklist to self-assess your own rhetorical questions.

So pause the video to give yourself time to do this.

And if there's time, you may even wish to rewrite some of your rhetorical questions if needed.

But pause the video to get this done.

Off you go.

Okay, well done everyone.

We have made it to the end of the lesson.

I hope for those of you that have never read any Charlie Brooker before that you found this engaging and enjoyed it as much as I do.

He really is a great writer, so do check out some of his other articles and even some of his TV shows.

So, let's just remind ourselves what we have learned.

We know that using knowledge of a writer and reading the title can help you make predictions about a text.

We know that Brooker uses irony and sarcasm to address a serious topic.

We know that rhetorical questions can be effective as long as they are not overused, and that rhetorical questions should be relevant to the topic and not rely on direct address or the pronoun, you, okay? Again, thank you so much for your hard work and I hope to see you all again in another English lesson soon.

But until then, goodbye.