First two sections need to be addressed more effectively addressed more specifically * Question needs to be More than anything else, conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or self- interest. – Respond to this statement through an analysis of the ways perspectives are represented in your prescribed text and at least ONE other related text of your own choosing. Interest. Conflicting perspectives are prevalent in our society and individuals’ perspectives are always going to be subjective as their personal paradigms, context ND profession invariably influence their interpretation.
Geoffrey Robertson’s Trials of OZ and Diana In the Dock: Does Privacy Matter? In The Justice Game primarily constructed as personal retrospectives demonstrate how conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or self-interest. Radio Nationals Rear Vision Program explores the ideological dichotomy between the media and privacy whilst opposing views regarding censorship are explored in the Sydney Morning Herald’s (SMS) newspaper article Is Weeklies a force for good? Lully, 2011) also represent that conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or self-interest.
Robertson’s chapter on Diana in the Dock illustrates how the composer’s personal convictions and attitudes toward Diana Windsor, shape the reader’s interpretation of information regarding her right to privacy as an individual. The conjunction coupled with the contrasting legal Jargon “l was in favor of privacy law but opposed monarchy’ strongly outlines Robertson own conflict towards Donna’s situation. His use of a personal, persuasive tone coupled with colloquial idiom and military-like Jargon in “There is, I’m convinced, a psychological need to preserve an intrusion zone of rationality and family’ reinforces his belief in personal privacy.
However Robertson is also critical of Diana because of the way she manipulates the media to her benefit. Although he is shown through emotive language to be an “author of a textbook that analyses and deplored the absence of any privacy law in Britain”, his cynical, disapproving attitude towards Diana is made clear with his employment of satirical tone, as conveyed in his disparaging comment “but Diana wanted privacy only when it suited her”.
Robertson effectively manipulates readers’ perceptions towards Diana wrought the subtle low modality coupled with the 3rd person in “She could much more conveniently used the gym at Bucking Palace” to show that Diana could Justice Game By shingling 1 1 Hence, it is clear Robertson’s strong self-interest in preserving privacy conflicts with his criticism of Diana and her manipulation the media.
Similarly, Radio Nationals Rear Vision Program conveys that the inability of individuals to seclude information about themselves has become almost a pandemic as metaphorically alluded through the peculiarity of pronunciation of the word “privacy’ in a British accent.
The loud volume, passionate tone, coupled with the anaphora of the box populism “Phone hacking is wrong, phone hacking is illegal” demonstrates the publics strong opposition to the media’s accessing of people’s “telephone or vocalism records” This portrays that for many, perspectives are shaped by law and is reflective of the publics fervent self-interest in preserving their own privacy. The perspective that the media can scrutinize a public figure is seen in the shift from a formal register to an irreverent tone through the idiomatic expression “get over it” to ease the seriousness of the issue of privacy.
The pause utterance coupled with the inadvertent upward inflection of “auditioning for a movie, or going on some kind of X- Factor style talent contest” extends the strong view that individuals “pretty much have to sacrifice any semblance of a private life” if they desire to be famous. This subtly alludes to the media’s manipulation of individuals for their self-interest in profit mastication, in which case privacy is commodities.
Hence, the radio report presents how conflicting perspectives may never be resolved due to their subjectivity and bias as clearly highlighted through the stress on “you” in well it depends on what YOU mean by that” to shape meaning. Robertson’s case The Trials of Oz demonstrates “a collision of cultural incomprehension” between the editors of OZ magazine and the prosecution due to bias. Robertson portrays the Jury panel as highly conservative, hardworking people and displays the challenge that the “three editors of Oz Magazine” and himself were going up against.
This is made evident in the ellipsis in the listing of the Jury occupations “Driver, Ganger, Foreman… ” Which reflect professions that lack an appreciation for artistic subversion. Furthermore, Judge Argyles use of biblical metaphor “drowned in the depths of sea with millstones around their necks” to describe the punishment that the editors should receive, highlights the laws out- dated ideology and hence bias towards what is deemed appropriate. Contrastingly, Robertson’s rhetorical question coupled with the allusion to the suppression of human rights in Russia in “Where were we – the Soviet Union? Demonstrates his liberal attitude towards the magazine’s contents. The collective noun and highly emotive language used to describe the editor’s experiences after Ewing convicted, by having them taken to “dungeons” by a “swarm of prison officers” effectively portrays their old fashioned, homogeneous ideology . It is evident that unnecessary, when it was nothing more than an expression of personal belief as exemplified through the hyperbole in the simile “like some nervous public official who, when a child puts out a tongue as him in the street, calls out the army’.
Therefore, the conflicting perspectives in this trial did emerge from biased perspectives. Those representing old fashioned ideologies coming into conflict with new ways of thinking Similarly, the Ism’s newspaper article conveys conflicting perspectives through the juxtaposition and contrast of perception regarding the issue of censorship through a discussion of Weeklies. The academic Michael Framer’s repeated use of interrogative adjectives “What is their editorial policy? “, “How can a reader make complaints? Passionately strikes the reader and demonstrates his strong opposition of Weeklies by portraying it as an disreputable source. The 2nd person narration coupled with the alliterative plosives “let us not forget Private Bradley Manning who is in a deep, dark hole” repositions adders to sympathies with oppressed citizens rather than with Weeklies which “has not held to traditional media standards”. The indefinite numerical adjective “mass publication of hundreds and thousands” heightens the superficiality of Weeklies as opposed to the powerful, historical and timeless moral values of humanity.
Hence Fraser attempts to convince responders that Weeklies is an unacceptable publication and also shows that bias may stem as a result of one’s profession. The antithesis of this perception is conveyed through human rights’ lawyer Jennifer Robinsons high modality “without question Weeklies has made a remarkable contribution”. This effectively manipulates the reader’s response to affirm her view. Her use of emotive language in “revealing abuse” and “torture” regards to Weeklies’ ability to provide necessary information “to make better informed choices” resonates with humanity moral values.
The possessive adjective coupled with the violent imagery in “Weeklies showed that our government continues to send troops to die in a train wreck” conveys the composers’ self-interest in preserving what is deemed essential for the public to know, rather than suppressing fundamental notions of egalitarianism. Hence, Ism’s newspaper article conveys that conflicting perspectives may be the result of bias stemming from one’s occupation due to their self-interest in “protection” of their Jobs. Interest. Geoffrey Robertson’s Trials of OZ and Diana In the Dock: Does Privacy Matter? Primarily constructed as personal retrospectives demonstrate how conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or self-interest. Radio Nationals Rear Vision Program explores the ideological dichotomy between the media and privacy whilst opposing views regarding censorship are explored in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMS) newspaper article Is Weeklies a force for good?