assignment #5

This is an interesting letter written to a Buffalo New York newspaper. The author is a guy named Marty Essen. To say that the Buffalo newspaper is his only audience would be inaccurate. In all reality, the audience is more generalized to Buffalo residents and those who read a Buffalo paper.
In this article, the author has several different messages, some of more import than others and some receiving more attention than others. The main message that I take from it is that drilling in sensitive regions, specifically ANWR in Alaska, is not the right decision for Americans to make. The author talks about a trip to the region and even contrasts the beauty of the natural region and the ugliness of regions that have been developed for oil drilling. He also seems to have some other messages in the text. He talks about how Americans are “addicted” to fossil fuels, and that alternative energy sources could and should be used by Americans more-so than they are. And finally, his message and claim is that drilling or oil does significant damage to the environments of those areas.
The first apparent claim for ethos in this article comes pretty early in the article. He approaches this argument as “beyond politics” and introduces himself as someone who has “seen [with his] own eyes” the damage that is being done in certain Alaska oil regions. This almost obligates the reader to respect his opinion. Not many Americans readers have actually been to Alaska and so they depend immediately on the author to present this in a fair, honest way.
More ethos is added when he goes into politics. He talks about how George W. Bush’s policies on the environment have “disappointed” him. This is going to create a lot of authority when aimed at people who are anti-Bush, which at this point, is a large part of the country. Of course, there are many different calls for ethos throughout the paper. They are good because they are pretty subtle.
As with most arguments, this one is loaded with emotional appeals. The author uses very vivid imagery and contrasts to create emotional appeals to the reader. For example, he talks about the beautiful scenery of a non-drilled plot in Alaska. He almost makes it out to be kind of a paradise. Soon after, he has shipped off to an oil field in a different part of Alaska. However, instead of everything being good this time, he is overwhelmed with how ugly and terrible the place is. This plays at people’s disgust. No one wants to see a pretty place go ugly, and that’s what the author suggests has happened in that particular region in Alaska.
He also plays at our sense of shame. He talks about how Americans are “addicted” to fossil fuels. In this way, readers feel like they are a part of the problem in a way. Sometimes, there is nothing more effective than the guilt trip, and the author seems to have it down pretty well.
Finally, we get to the Logos. If there is anything that I am disappointed in with this guy’s argument, it is the logos. He seems to have spent a good portion making a sound argument on how drilling is bad for the environment and then he switches gears before you know it. A major thing said about drilling in ANWR shouldn’t be done because it wouldn’t even help that much. The reader is left to say, “well if it doesn’t help that much, then why do it? I think that this is the author’s intent. He obviously doesn’t want to see Alaska drilled in any further. Since he is trying to convince others that that is not the right thing to do, his logical argument is that even if we were to drill in these areas, it wouldn’t be helpful. He talks about how oil is on a work market and that drilling our own oil in the states would only be minimally helpful. I think that this is a logical enough argument, but that more time and focus could have been spent on it. All in all, it is a good article and makes some very good points. It seems convincing enough and provides some good information. But it obviously only tells one side of the story.