Media analysis essay 2

[TrueTears]

Hi, thanks for those who checked my other essay, this is another one that our class has to write. The issue is Bill Henson, the photographer who photographed naked children for his art exhibition. The issue was mainly around April - October in 2008. My essay is 820 words. Any feedback would be much appreciated!




After the withdrawal of a number of works from the Bill Henson exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery, debate surfaced regarding the morality of Henson’s art. In an opinion piece, ‘Bill Henson and his art pushes our limits’, in the 26 May, 2008 issue of the Herald Sun, Jill Singer contends in an unequivocal tone that the Bill Henson’s photographs pushes the boundaries of legality and moral comfort, as a result children must be protected. In contrast, in a letter by Alison Croggon, a Creative Australia 2020 summit representative, controverts in a forthright and earnest tone that Bill Henson’s work is in no way affiliated with the abuse of children.

The title of the opinion piece, “Bill Henson and his art pushes our limits,” immediately implies that Bill Henson’s ‘art’ is treading dangerous territory. The use of inclusive language, ‘our limits’, implies Henson’s photographs are offensive to everyone. The piece begins with a short anecdote which serves to personalize the issue. This makes it more accessible for the audience and it refocuses the issue to the audiences’ own domestic setting. A sense of authority and complexity is developed when we realize that Singer and her friend ‘know Bill Henson’. Singer seeks to raise unease and distress among the audience by using emotive and evocative imagery. “Her hands are draped in front of her genitals, her tiny breasts are bare.” This draws the audience’s attention to how exposed the girl is, hence creating discomfort. Further use of anecdotes such as “I remember taking a photograph of my six-year-old daughter…but I’d never make it public” serves to undermine Henson’s ‘art’ and hints that his photographs are actually encouraging child exploitation. Parents reading this may agree with Singer’s reasonable stance. Heavy emphasize is placed on the protection of children by appealing to fear, “There are too many nut cases out there.” Audiences, especially parents, are encouraged to look after their children. In an almost mocking tone, Singer suggests Bill Henson ‘could easily maintain his particular aesthetic within the bounds of the law by finding slightly older subjects.’ This belittles his artwork and as a result, audiences are more convinced of Singer’s contention. A combination of inclusive and formal language is used as a call for action, “We have a duty to protect children from exploitation.” This implies that the people who do not protect children are irresponsible. Furthermore, not only does this create a sense of solidarity and responsibility within the audience but it also ensures that the majority of the readership is not alienated.

Conversely, the letter by Alison Croggon, solidly defends Bill Henson, by stressing that his work is not associated with pornography. In a measured tone, Croggon urges political leaders such as Kevin Rudd and NSW’s Premier to rethink their comments about Henson. By accentuating the position of Bill Henson as a respected and well-known artist, Croggon seeks to encourage the reader to change their opinion of Henson. Croggon seeks to gain the support of the audience by saying “Mr Henson’s work has attracted more than 115,000 people and produced not one complaint of obscenity.” This also implies that the majority of people supports Henson rather than oppose him. As a result, readers who oppose Croggon are actually opposing the majority, hence leading them to question their own opinions about Henson’s art. Croggon indirectly disproves possible counterarguments by saying “His work has also been studied widely in schools for many years.” This suggests that Bill Henson’s art is worthy of study and implies that those against it are opposing the education system. Croggon seeks to gain respect for Henson by appealing to authority. “Mr Henson has been photographing young models for more than 15 years.” His experience further lends him credibility in the eyes of the audience; hence readers who were once against Henson might be inclined to change their perspective of him. Croggon appeals to history that “nude in art stretches back to the ancient Greeks.” This implies that readers who are against Henson’s art are actually disproving the history of art. Croggon attempts to establish a difference between pornography and Bill Henson’s art, “The intention of the art is to make the viewer consider the fragility, beauty…of the human body.” Readers are now likely to view Henson’s art with a different attitude. The issue is broadened out when Croggon says “This action will encourage a repressive climate of hysterical condemnation.” This is intended to alarm the readers, suggesting that those who approve Bill Henson being charged are the ones who are actually being hysterical.

The opinion piece by Jill Singer mainly uses emotive language and anecdotes to consolidate its point of view. It also appeals to parents, especially those who have children. Croggon’s letter presents the audience with a solid argument mainly directed at policy makers and politicians. Her balanced approach is effective in conveying to the audience her contention.

[TrueTears]

Also another essay if someone could check, i'll just post it here because i don't want to make a new thread, the issue is on binge drinking.



After the increase in the number of teenage binge drinkers, debate surfaced regarding the amount of authority that parents have over their children. In an article entitled “Kids party, parents get a hangover”, in the 10 March 2008 issue of The Age, Doctor Simon Crisp, clinical adolescent and family psychologist, contends in a cautionary yet informative tone that parents are gradually losing authority over their teenage children resulting in destructive behaviour. Likewise, the editorial, in the 12 March issue of The Age, contends in an informative and at times supportive tone that a coordinated approach, including the co-operation of everyone, will solve the problem of binge drinking. The picture supporting the editorial suggests in a satirical tone that people should not be swayed by alcohol advertisements but rather think for themselves.

The cartoon supporting Crisp’s article is dominated by a large hand holding a bottle of beer which symbolises absolute power. The relative size of the hand implies that it is powerful and strong. In contrast, the parent is much smaller and appears to be having trouble ‘hanging’ on to her teenage child. This hints that the parent is powerless and helpless. The beer bottle is depicted to be sucking the child’s head inside, this shows that the child has no control over alcohol, while the alcohol has total control over him. This also highlights the fact that parents need to have authority over their children and hence protect them from alcohol. The cartoon can also be seen as a “tug-of-war”, where if the parent has sufficient influence and power over their children, then they will gain the upper hand in the ‘battle’ against alcohol. However, if they lack concern and responsibility over their children, then ultimately their children will be ‘sucked’ into alcohol.

The title of Crisp’s article catches our attention straight away. At first glance, the title implies that while children have fun partying, it is the parents who clean up after them. However on closer inspection, we see that the title seeks to separate teenagers from parents and show that when teenagers get drunk, they hold the upper hand while the parents lack authority. As a result, parents will often take the blame and responsibility for anything that goes wrong. This is effective in inducing distress and concern into the audience, especially those who are parents. Crisp then recognizes the need “…for some serious rethinking” and this is directly targeted at politicians, community leaders and policy makers. This is immediately followed by Crisp blaming commercial operators for targeting vulnerable children; again this solidifies Crisp’s sense of authority. By comparing today’s teenagers with earlier generations, older audiences are likely to recall their childhood and compare which generation would be a better place to grown up in. Crisp also emphasizes the need to protect children. By saying “adult tools of business are now seen as essential children’s toys” implies that children could easily be put in danger. In essence, Crisp encourages the audience, especially those who are parents, to protect and look after their children. Fear is instigated in the audience through the use of connotative language “…predators targeting children on the internet”. By saying “the net result is to remove power from parents” creates a sense of distress or even perplexity among the audience. Furthermore, it is likely that Crisp wants parents to start taking action before it is too late. Crisp then start to broaden out his targeted audience to schools and the police. This hints a shift in tone, Crisp controverts in a more supportive and at times sympathetic tone towards the parents. Through strong language Crisp strengthens his argument that parents “need to not just take control at certain times, but have the power to do so.” This encourages not only parents to take action and protect their children, but also anyone who are involved in young people’s lives. By using evidence that alcohol can cause deleterious effects on health, it lends Crisp’s argument weight and also appeals to authority. Seeking to induce fear into the audience, Crisps states that “prolonged used can lead to permanent brain damage.” In a benignant tone, Crisps ends his article by urging society, especially the government, to support parents.

The title of the editorial, “Confronting the demon of under-age alcohol abuse,” seeks to promote fear and apprehension into the audience. The byline is directed at community leaders and families; it can also be seen as a call for action. The editorial begins by providing disturbing evidence and statistics such as, “one in five over-indulging once per week” from the ANCD. This seeks to shock the audience and illustrate how serious the problem is. Furthermore, by providing the evidence from a reliable source lends the argument gravitas hence making it seem incontrovertible in the eyes of the audience. The editorial then supports Kevin Rudd by saying, “The strategy has been welcomed by health and sports groups – as it is by this newspaper.” This implies that anyone who is disagrees with the strategy is against the government. The editorial then shifts its targeted audience towards parents by saying “…binge drinking has become so entrenched with young people that it defines their generation. It is something which parents have little control.” This stresses the need to protect teenage children and audiences, especially parents, would be elicit feelings of fear, concern and even anxiety. In a supportive tone, the editorial praises Rudd’s strategies, “Mr Rudd is right when he says teenage drinking is a question of personal responsibilities.” This encourages the audience to work with the government.

At first glance, one would think the picture supporting the editorial is an advertisement. However, on closer inspection, we realize that the picture is overtly satirical and seeks to mock the advertising strategies of alcohol companies. The choice of certain words such as depressing, phoney and ugly, makes the already sarcastic advertisement even more sardonic. The use of rhetorical questions such as, “Isn’t it time you had a Binge?” indicates that it is directed at the general public, it implies that people should think for themselves and not be fooled by alcohol advertisements. The advertisement not only seeks to criticise the advertisers, but also aims to criticise alcohol as a solution for escapists. By describing politicians as “screwed-up” and “self-serving” shows that it is also directed at politicians and policy makers, it can also be seen as a call for action. The exaggerated picture of a cartoon figure looking totally dazed, mesmerized and dripping saliva depicts the absurdity and fatuity of the advertisement. We also see that cartoon figure is looking at a photo of a “Binge Lager” beer bottle. The purpose of this is to show the audience that there is nothing special about alcohol and instead of being controlled and manipulated by alcohol, people should think for themselves. 

Simon Crisp’s article incorporates a combination of strong and formal language which would most certainly appeal to parents, but may also interest politicians, community leaders and even commercial operators. The editorial utilises statistics and evidence to appeal to community leaders, families and parents. The overtly satirical advertisement
uses humour and sarcasm to critisise the alcohol advertisers while appealing to the general public.