Suay Toprak
07/09/2011
2011 Catholic Trial
Feedback from marker:
 First two sections need to be addressed more effectively
 Question needs to be addressed more specifically
More than anything else, conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or selfinterest.
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.
More than anything else, conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or selfinterest. Conflicting perspectives are prevalent in our society and individuals’
perspectives are always going to be subjective as their personal paradigms,
context and 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 National’s
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 (SMH) newspaper article Is Wikileaks a force for good? (July,
2011) also represent that conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or selfinterest.
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 “I was in favour of privacy
law but opposed monarchy” strongly outlines Robertson own conflict towards
Diana’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 personality 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 analysed and deplored the absence
Suay Toprak
07/09/2011
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 through the subtle
low modality coupled with the 3rd person in “She could much more conveniently
used the gym at Buckingham Palace” to show that Diana could have retained her
privacy had she desired to do so.
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 National’s 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 vox populi “Phone hacking is wrong, phone hacking is
illegal” demonstrates the public’s strong opposition to the media’s accessing of
people’s “telephone or voicemail records” This portrays that for many,
perspectives are shaped by law and is reflective of the public’s fervent selfinterest in preserving their own privacy.
The perspective that the media can scrutinise 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 maximisation, in which case privacy is
commodified.
Suay Toprak
07/09/2011
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’s occupations “Driver, Ganger, Foreman…” which reflect professions that
lack an appreciation for artistic subversion. Furthermore, Judge Argyle’s 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
being convicted, by having them taken to “dungeons” by a “swarm of prison
officers” effectively portrays their old fashioned, homogenous ideology . It is
evident that Robertson and the defence team viewed the trial as ridiculous,
childish and 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 SMH’s newspaper article conveys conflicting perspectives through
the juxtaposition and contrast of perception regarding the issue of censorship
through a discussion of Wikileaks.
Suay Toprak
07/09/2011
The academic Michael Fraser’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 Wikileaks 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 readers to sympathise with oppressed citizens
rather than with Wikileaks which “has not held to traditional media standards”.
The indefinite numerical adjective “mass publication of hundreds and
thousands” heightens the superficiality of Wikileaks as opposed to the powerful,
historical and timeless moral values of humanity. Hence Fraser attempts to
convince responders that Wikileaks 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 Robinson’s high modality “without question Wikileaks 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 Wikileaks’ ability to provide necessary information “to make better
informed choices” resonates with humanity’s moral values. The possessive
adjective coupled with the violent imagery in “Wikileaks 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,
SMH’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.
More than anything else, conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or selfinterest. 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 National’s
Suay Toprak
07/09/2011
Rear Vision Program explores the ideological dichotomy between the media and
privacy whilst opposing views regarding censorship are explored in the Sydney
Morning Herald (SMH) newspaper article Is Wikileaks a force for good? (July,
2011) also represent that conflicting perspectives are the result of bias or selfinterest.
Word Count: 1251
From Mrs Tatsis:
You are just listing the same point for each of your texts. You need to say what
the bias or self interest is for each one, hence it should vary.
Note to Mrs Tatsis:
I’m a bit confused with how not to provide the “same point” – it so happened that
the composers’ bias stemmed from their occupation, do I need to change this?