Exercise 20: Teen binge drinking comparative analysis (pp 52-53)
Dr Michael Carr-Gregg is a well known, expert psychologist, especially regarding adolescents. Using his status and authority to lend credibility to his arguments, he attempts to outline how dangerous the binge drinking trend is, and also criticises politicians and parents for not doing enough to prevent it. Adopting an authoritative tone, he likens the trend to a fatal virus, in order to emphasize to his target audience of parents and politicians just how dangerous teen binge drinking it. Continuing with his length metaphor, Dr Carr-Gregg attacks and criticises politicians for their ineffective remedies – “…most of the prescriptions…turned out to have faked code…the virus has kept spreading,” which positions the audience against the politicians, portraying them as lazy and incompetent. However, the author also blames the actions of parents for the trend. Describing their parenting practices as “’tamagotchi” in style – “zero supervision, no limits or boundaries” positions parents reading the article to look at themselves and their actions as the blame. The comparison to a children’s toy also implies that the targeted parents are unsuitable to be raising a child. To compound this point, he uses hyperbolic language, describing teenager’s discretionary income as “atmospheric” in order to depict parents as being irresponsible with their parenting practices – a further criticism. He also further ensures that the audience will sympathise with the sense of urgency with which he wrote the article by appealing to community values, stating that “Victorians are increasingly frightened….,” appealing to the audience as a whole.
In relation to the binge drinking debate, cartoonist Tandberg submitted a picture to the Age depicting an exchange between two authority figures and the parents of a binge drinking child. The image attacks and criticises parenting practices in a similar manner to Dr Carr-Gregg’s article, trying to place responsibility on the parents. The exchange shows the authority figures seeking to counsel parents regarding their child’s binge drinking, but the parents themselves are hung over, attempting to recover from their own drinking spree. This positions the reader to ponder the link between adults drinking to excess and their offspring following this trend. By painting the parents as also being binge drinkers, the cartoon shifts the blame onto the parents as they are seen as role models for kids. This is a similar message to the one Dr Carr-Gregg’s article carries – it is often the actions of parents that lead to, and enable, binge drinking.
However, in Tandberg’s opinion, is it the parent’s binge drinking as opposed to their lenience that leads to the problem. (1)
Professor Markson, in his article entitled Time to put a foot down is of a similar opinion to Dr Carr-Gregg. He, too, criticises both parents and politicians for their roles in allowing binge drinking in teenagers. However, Professor Markson contends that the issue in the drinking epidemic is how easy alcohol I to get a hold of, even for those who are under 18. His major target audience is adults whose children drink to excess, whom he criticises for their “laissez-faire attitudes” with reportedly half of parents saying they would “provide alcohol to 17 year olds.” This is on par with Dr Carr-Gregg’s statements regarding current parenting practices, of “zero supervision, no limits or boundaries.” This use of statistics, as well as the author’s title of professor, shows the audience he is a reliable source, positioning them to agree with him in his area of expertise. He further appeals to our sense of health and wellbeing by advising the reader that “alcohol severely disrupts the critical period of development,” referring to late adolescence to the young 20s. Through this, the reader is expected to more fully appreciate the everlasting effect of teen binge drinking – much like Dr Carr-Gregg’s “fatal virus.” (2)
The letter written by Kelvin Mach reinforces the views of the previous articles, and to an even greater extent Tandberg’s cartoon. His position as a teenager enables him to show parents reading the letter the effect of their actions from a firsthand standpoint. Adopting a victimised position, he claims that “naughty party boys” are “scapegoated” for the actions of parents. He criticises their drinking habits – a sentiment shared by Dr Carr-Gregg and Professor Markson – saying parents should have a look at the example they are setting, which is, after work “two or three” and “when the footy’s on it’s four or five or six.” The use of evidence such as this is in line with the carton by Tandberg, which makes the link between drinking in adults and their kids. Having anecdotal evidence to support this lends further credibility to the idea. The notion that parents are largely responsible for their offspring’s drinking habits is one that is shared throughout the previously analysed articles or cartoons.
(1) Good response.
(2) Re: Professor Markson’s article: The cross-referencing and linking sentences set up the comparative discussion quite well. However, the comments relating specifically to Professor Markson’s article read like a list. Explore the connections between each of these techniques/comments so that you can better investigate the implications of the professor’s research. For example, show the links between the research, the depiction of parents and the appeals to health and wellbeing/leadership. These techniques support the main focus — the depiction of parents and their lack of confidence — which leads to complicity in the teenage-binge drinking problem.