Not For Publicaion-Chris Masters
Essay Preview: Not For Publicaion-Chris Masters
Report this essay
Explore how ideas, proposition and arguments in expository text can be exposed by examining the methods of persuasion.
Chris Masters, investigative journalist for Four Corners presents ideas, propositions and arguments through methods of persuasion such as language, point of view, selection of detail, tone, use of metaphors and construction in his published versions of articles he did not but to air on the ABC. Why did Chris masters publish this text? The answer to this question and purpose of this expository text lies within the exposure of the ideas, propositions and arguments that the text provides. Not for Publication underlines such themes as democracy, (the freedom of speech, knowledge and to read/ write what we wish and a lifestyle without censorship). We are asked to question ourselves whether the public is enforcing this democracy critical and with visulence or if we are leaving it to trust between the journalists words and the public acceptance of those words. Has consumer sovereignty disappeared? Isnt the producer meant to meet consumers demands? Economics has told us this, does this mean that the public is asking for biased reports, lies and missed information within the media, does part of our human anatomy require daily drama, violence and heart filled brake through stories? Chris Masters uses episodes which makes suggestions and questions the audiences beliefs on issues surrounding the theme of democracy but each episode addressing a different idea or concept.
In the expository novel Not for Publication the episode “The man who will not march” Chris Masters addresses the fading pride and attitudes returning war veterans have and our nation icon “Anzac day” and the emotions this day with holds within us. As 2005 represents the year of the last living WW1 veterans, Chris Masters is left to question, What is going on when we dont have our own veterans marching in commemoration?. Have we skipped a generation or lost a generation willing to show up and march for what we have been told is pride each and ever 25th of April? Have we wrongly made heroes out of everyday surviving victims of battle whose experience have torn and scared them and their families forever? I now sit here and wonder how Chris Masters successfully stirred this reaction within me and how he has persuaded me to re-consider next year before I awake at 4:30am for the damn service, whom my own grandfather will shrug off or maybe go in the only belief that it may be his last. Masters carefully users point of view to cover his persuasion and just leave the audience questioning and where the audience isnt positioned to question he leaves u with a rhetorical question. “The man who will not march” episode has little introduction and is straight into third person personal experience with descriptive investigative journalist language. It then quickly within a paragraph turns into verbatim form, a word for word recollection from a returning veteran, who we are position to believe, takes a negative view upon the rituals of Anzac day traditions. After the veteran haunting recollection Chris Masters further persuades with change to a narrative point of view in which to establish the context of the discussion and sets a scene to which the audience has visual connection and understanding. Within this first person section, there is careful selection of the re-telling of the plot. For instance he decides to tell us of the reaction he views from the wife peeking through
the curtains but fails to express the emotion on the veterans face or his body language at all. Why does Chris Masters only tell us of the wifes body language and facial expressions but none of her exact words and only the veterans exact words but none of his body language or facial expressions? The use of point of view and selection of re-collection within this section present and persuade Chris Masters ideas and proposition he has adopted through his experiences with investigative journalism.
Chris Masters not only uses different methods of persuasion but also uses different approaches in structure in each one of his episodes within his expository novel. Some episodes I believe are simply vices to explain techniques of investigative journalism and underline the element of unfinished business and finally have faith to tell these unpublished stories to the world. He presents a spin you ordinarily wouldnt receive from the media news genre and strongly emphasize the need for a visulent, critical audience who dont just accept the biased knowledge feed to them but make comment on what is satisfactory and what is not. I believe the episode “The School Perfect” is used simply for this purpose, to focus more on how the article was filmed and technical difficulties that prevent this from actually making the air. Masters spends more time and pages making some what excusers for the failure of the article and why it didnt air then he did actually re-telling the story of the perfect. The first 4 pages relate only to his job, the changers it has endured and the experiences he has had, it then quickly adjusts to first person past tease point of view establishing a background and setting but no character. Finally half way down the sixth page he mentions “the one we remember” and presents to the audience the idea that it might not be the drug addicts fault they suffer like this and the public wouldnt care unless they could relate or feel at some point responsible.
“I am also bothered by the idea that a report focusing
on a middle-class drug user is more likely to work because people will care more. It is as if every other user is a deviant and not worthy of our tearsÐÐ…Ð….Is it really