The main purpose of  this Charlie Brooker blog post is to entertain the readers. He uses wit and humour to describe his experience of watching the voice, whilst making fun of it. Due to this is could possibly be seen as a persuasive post, however I do not think this was intentional, because it is though by many people, which is what make it funny and relatable. Since he offers his opinion in his blog, this could possibly start debate. However many of his readers who regularly read his blog will understand the humour rather than disagreeing with his opinions.

The audience for this blog would most likely be young adults, however not of a specific gender. This is because the voice is mostly watched by younger people due to the famous judges who would be recognised  by this age range. Although this doesn't fall under a category, the readers would mainly have quite a high intelligence and have a good sense of humour. This would mean that the blog would have the right effect on the reader, which is to allow people to relate to their opinion, which could perhaps be making fun of a particular subject. In my opinion I don't think that this blog post is intended to inform you of the details of the voice, since it is not a serious use of information.

At the same time as using a formal register, Charlie Brooker uses a conversational tone, which is coherent and fluent. This means that he can use his sarcastic humour to reflect on his experience, as if he is speaking to the reader personally. For this particular blog this is useful, since it would perhaps be a conversation that you would have in real life, due to the fact that the voice is quite a popular programme.

Some examples of lexis and semantics in this blog post are taboo language. For instance he says the coaches were 'judging the shit out of everybody'. This creates a humorous effect since the swearing exaggerates the fact that the programme denies that the coaches judge the contestants. Charlie Brooker also uses similes that aren't necessarily accurate, however they can be understood in a humorous way. An example of this is that tom jones 'looks more like Zeus these days'. A few more uses of language that he uses to create humour is pathetic fallacy and idiolect.

Grammar used in this blog post also have a great effect. For example he uses an ellipsis when describing the duration of the show which is a way of exaggerating, since it makes the time seem longer, therefore he is  suggesting that the programme seemed longer than it was. Perhaps because it was boring, which people may relate to if they are not fans of the voice.