Comparison between Mr Smith’s and Mr Pearse’s views, p. Orange book, pp 55-60.
Introduction: introduce the two articles:
As the media focuses on refugee issues, another side-issue continues to simmer. How fast should Australia grow? What it its optimum population level? In his speech, titled “Rupert Murdoch come back to Australia”, Mr Smith makes a passionate plea for Mr Murdoch to show leadership with regards to our unsustainable population growth and climate change. The occasion is the launch of Mr Smith’s book entitled, “Dick Smith’s population crisis”. During the speech Mr Smith draws upon his status as a successful Australian businessman and one would assume that the audience is well-informed or seeks further information about Australia’s environment and future growth prospects. In contrast, Mr Guy Pearse, takes issue with Mr Smith’s views and in his column in the Monthly Magazine, persuades readers to recognise what he believes is Mr Smith’s self-interested and hypocritical approach.
Analysis of first text: Mr Dick Smith
A concerned audience has gathered in Dymocks to hear Mr Smith’s message about the lack of leadership with regards to Australia’s growth. The girls’ T-shirts and the slogan, “Constant growth is doom”, negatively focuses the audience’s attention on the downside of perpetual growth and suggests that Mr Smith is in tune with the needs of the younger population, captured sensationally in the photograph. Throughout his speech, Mr Smith presents himself as a concerned Australian and warns politicians about the problems of careless growth. Because of the moral intent of his message he seeks to downplay what Mr Guy Pearse will refer to as a self-serving marketing ploy. However, this claim does not deter Mr Smith from preaching to politicians, officials and newspaper owners about the need to show responsible planning. To open his speech, he also refers to Terri Irwin, Steve Irwin’s widow, which bolsters his credentials as a popular, caring and passionate Australian.
Throughout his speech, Mr Smith seeks to adopt the high moral ground by exposing the hypocrisy shown by politicians and business leaders who place self interest above the common good. As such, Mr Smith expects the audience to isolate those who do not logically see the consequences of unsustainable development. The negative references to the “lame excuses” offered by politicians as well as their fear of being “crucified” presents them as devoid of principles and courage. Likewise, the attack on “wealthy colleagues” reveals their double standards, which is likely to incense members of the audience. Contrastingly, Mr Smith presents Mr Murdoch as someone who seems to espouse the “right” views in public in a way that provides hope for ordinary Australians. The speaker supportively states that “I have changed my view” with regards to Mr Murdoch’s monopoly because of his socially responsible and inclusive public comments. As such Mr Smith strategically builds a sense of trust among listeners for the newspaper mogul as well as an aura of suspense.
At the same time, Mr Smith seeks to undermine such trust and credibility by encouraging his listeners to question Mr Murdoch’s motives given the contradictory stance of his newspapers. The fact that the media mogul’s newspapers appear to espouse different views in public is likely to build a sense of frustration among members of the public as it hints at Mr Murdoch’s possibly deceptive tactics. The colloquial statement referring to the fact that The Australian has “gone off the rails” is accusatory in tone and draws attention to Mr Murdoch’s double standards.
To conclude his speech, Mr Smith provocatively issues a series of indirect challenges to Mr Murdoch, particularly those relating to his capacity to become a modern day Lord Beaverbrook, so that listeners can assess his integrity. Concerned listeners would recognise the subtext — that Mr Murdoch lacks the admirable qualities that made Churchill and Beaverbrook such important leaders of their time. The historical parallel serves to undermine Mr Murdoch’s credibility and distance concerned listeners. Mr Smith becomes colloquially vehement with his reference to the editors at the Australian who have “lost the plot” and who do not understand, as presumably the listeners do, the importance of action. Evidently, he seeks to convince his concerned listeners that Mr Murdoch is not displaying sufficient integrity in the public sphere. He furthermore expects to incite the public’s indignation with claims about “pathetic squabbling” among leaders which is bound to leave the audience feeling cheated. The image on the book cover could be seen as an example of sensationalism and hyperbole; however much depends upon the listeners’ backgrounds and the sources they have read.
Compare the second text with Mr Smith’s: Comparative essay: Online Monthly, by Guy Pearse, p 58
Mr Guy Pearse, paragraph 5, p. 59
In his Online Monthly article Mr Pearse attempts to expose to online readers the pretentious nature of Dick Smith’s claims and underscore his moral and environmental credentials as a wealthy businessman. Specifically, he accuses Mr Smith of double standards – “do as i say, not as i do” – to ensure that the public remains sceptical of his motives. With the view to exasperating Mr Smith’s presumably well-intentioned audience, Mr Pearse draws attention to the fact that there is a contradiction between Mr Smith’s views and the lifestyle of this “grandfather of six” who “recommends two kids”. Furthermore, the author invites the audience to share his ridicule and isolate Mr Smith by listing the materialistic items that he owns to emphasise that he is just as guilty of metaphorically “feeding the addiction” as those who buy his “stuff”. To appear authentic and to further deflate the businessman’s sense of importance, Mr Pearse imitates his quotes and flippant response – he ‘joked about the fuel bill’. As a result, he seeks to make people appear foolish if they share Mr Smith’s views.
Mr Pearse’s tone becomes less cynical and more dogmatic as he shifts the audience’s focus to Australia’s international moral obligations. Having decisively derided Mr Smith’s hypocritical lifestyle, the author now shames his agenda as a “self-serving chimera”. He also impugns his motives with the metaphoric characterisation of him as a ‘cherry-picking’ alarmist, which denotes that he is being purposely and deceptively selective. Mr Pearse legitimises his views through the suggestion that Mr Smith has suffered a “repudiation” in Gillard’s population report, which is not heeding his demands. The alliterative phrase — ‘colourful cocktail’ — suggests that Mr Smith’s reasoning is defective as it does not show moral obligation to those suffering around the world. Ultimately, Mr Pearse’s language predisposes the majority of his online audience to discard Dick Smith’s views as misguided and selfish and it seeks to reassure those who seek a larger population agenda.
Conclusion
The rate of population growth in western developed countries such as Australia attracts a great deal of controversy. Mr Smith’s and Mr Pearse’s opinions are typical of the heated and often personal approach to the issue. Both advance impassioned and patriotic cases that persuade readers to recognize the complexity of the population debate. While Mr Smith urges the public to protect our resources and exhorts Mr Murdoch to show responsible leadership with regards to sustainable growth – and by inference exposes the hypocrisy of his newspapers, Mr Pearse, believes that in his own way Mr Smith is just as hypocritical. He leaves readers with the impression that there is no option but to grow and fulfil our ethical responsibility towards the rest of the world.