“Let’s try to look after our children without hysteria” analysis

In the opinion piece “Let’s try to look after our children without hysteria” from The Age newspaper on October 7th 2008, Dr. Leslie Cannold writes about the Bill Henson “saga” in a decidedly sarcastic and authoritative tone, whilst maintaining the contention that the mass hysteria surrounding this incident is entirely unnecessary.

From the beginning of the article, we are met with Cannold’s sarcastic approach to the issue at hand, shown when she offhandedly states: “Oh, and the day he had to fight through a media scrum to get through the front gate.” The tone of this sentence serves as irony for the readers – who would be predominately adults or parents – as its flippancy and sarcasm actually intend to demean the act it is referring to. By using anecdotal evidence about “[her] child” going to school and then going on to put the word “incident” in quotation marks, Cannold succeeds in beginning to make a mockery of the issue at hand, drawing the readers into the article and perhaps making them question their stance on the issue. She is depicting the issue as being incredibly trivial compared to the media’s portrayal of it.

In a somewhat frustrated tone, Cannold goes on to quote high-profile persons such as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Heffernan, using their quotes to prove the absurdity of the “moral panic” of the public. She chooses her words carefully when describing the incident that took place, deciding on naming Henson as an “internationally renowned artist” and “godparent” who was being “escorted” through the school playground. Such language may affect the reader in the sense that they may begin to believe that Henson was not actually doing anything wrong. This is furthermore emphasised as the article continues, when Cannold uses evidence to make clear that “one girl and one boy” were identified by Henson, and that it was the parents’ decision to make contact with him. By using such a phrase as “bowed out” to describe the Principle’s actions in this situation have a profound effect on the reader, giving them enough evidence to think that it’s possible that this situation was blown out of proportion.

Cannold continues her article with the use of a rhetorical question and some colourful language. When she poses the question “How might [the boy who agreed to have his photo taken] be feeling now?” she makes some readers feel ashamed for feeding on the media frenzy and making a decision on the situation before knowing the full story. Cannold continues with this when she is extremely condescending towards the public’s response to this issue, and uses an emphatic tone with phrases like “fuelling the hysteria”, “profoundly deluded” and “feeding frenzy” to make them furthermore aware of how wrong they were to act this way. Repetition also plays a major part in Cannold’s condemnation of the public’s response, with the repeated use of the word “no” when listing all the traits lacked by those who passed judgement on Henson’s actions.

Cannold maintains her contention that denouncing Henson’s actions is ill-founded and not making children any safer by asking another rhetorical question – “would anyone be caterwauling now?” – when comparing the potential reaction to George Lucas scouting the school as opposed to Bill Henson. She goes on to use evidence to state that police “declined to press charges”, and yet Henson is still wrongfully accused as “guilty as not charged”. Such evidence and use of slightly emotive language causes the reader to possibly feel slightly sympathetic towards Henson, as the article is attempting to prove that he did in fact do nothing wrong. Cannold then somewhat acerbically states that “no child has even been harmed by the godfather of a classmate looking at him while the principle of his school stood nearby”. This statement furthermore emphasises the apparent ridiculousness of the furore surrounding this issue, and many readers who denounced Henson may begin to feel slightly sheepish.

Cannold closes her article with a lot of inclusive language. She uses the words “our children” and “our schools” to make the situation seem more personal to the reader, and by asking “what can we do?” and then quoting the authority of the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, she invites the readers to agree with her opinions and judgements. Cannold’s final statements are written in a level-headed and rational tone, saying that the “panic” around this issue was not “sensible” and that protecting “our kids” requires “keep[ing] our heads”. By ending the article with inclusive language, the reader stays drawn in to the very end, and may go away thinking about the issue from a different perspective.

This article is likely to have a profound effect on readers, as it is extremely convincing and undeniably serves its purpose of getting the readers to see Henson’s side of the story.