Appeal to Audience - Analyzing Debate

(WEEKLY WRITING NUMBER 5)

Revisiting the two articles from last week, it grows even more apparent as to how different their imagined audiences are. Additionally, just the tone and voice alone truly distinguish the purpose and intention of the two articles. Last week, the first articles that was analyzed was written by Karryn Sakko and was written very formally with little voice but a great deal of facts. The second article, was Robert Weissmans’ Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose article which was a passionate discussion regarding the extent of corporate monopolies as well as how they are destroying the small farmer by forcing them into legal binds as well as putting them out of business.

In Sakko’s article she presents facts almost entirely throughout her essay. She goes into facts for both sides of the debate, but ultimately provides more facts for the side in which she supports – which is the benefits of Genetically Modified Food. She presents her arguments almost list-like as she divulges reasons for and against the argument present. She relies on information from personal observation as well as research alike to draw upon these conclusions set forth by a relatively scientific audience. Additionally, she relies on the idea that her audience is interested in hearing both sides of the debate and assumes that they can and will draw upon conclusions for themselves. However, being a scientific researcher to a scientific audience she readily assumes that they will be more bias to her preference due to the fact that she lists more reasons for her argument as opposed to the other.

In her article Sakko values first hand information as well as facts and observation. Yet, because there is so little voice, it is really hard to determine why exactly her convictions exist, though we know they are there. She values information, and so, it seems that she is more interested in the scientific benefits of continual research, and thus, it might outweigh the costs. As for personal hierarchy, it seems as though she values economics first. Throughout her article, the first point that she introduces is the fact that it will ultimately be cheaper in the long run. Additionally, she values food quality which she addresses as her second point. Additionally, she seems less concerned about the spread of the genes as well as impact on the environment. Ultimately, to evaluate the value object she employs logic as well as information and research to evaluation the effects of GMO’s. She is making a very clear appeal to logic and she is working to deduce reasons as to why it is good and why it is bad, but shoes that there is perhaps more good than bad present. By doing this she is initiating the loci of quantity by saying that ultimately the greatest number of people will benefit though this, and that is what is the most important. However, this too is debatable due to the health issues that she brings up.

Weissman approaches his argument from a whole different perspective. In his argument, he rests on the experts of the matter. He uses concrete numbers to show Monsantos’ profits as well as specific cases in which Monsanto has destroyed a farmers business as well as industry statistics and scientific evidence to back up any claims that he makes while citing scientific sources. It is hard to determine initially what audience assumptions that he relies on, however, upon further reading it would seem that if the audience is going to read something with such a bias title, they are either going to completely agree with what he is saying or completely disagree (and from there he will try to persuade them). He assumes that his audience is very opinionated and possibly already has some kind of impression or stance on the issue prior to reading the article.

It is very obvious that he values entrepreneurship and small family business. It is not necessarily that he is saying major industry is terrible, but he is saying that their current practices right now are hurting others and binding them in a way they cannot sustain. He values company morals, and is taking a stance as to where he sees those morals being compromised. I think it is apparent in his essay that he holds individual business rights above anything else; from there economics is important as well as legal rights. I say this specifically because it seems as though he is really fighting for the little guy, and in doing so is making a statement as to flaws in our systems. It seems also that he values the loci of the person. While he is not fighting for a specific individual, it seems as though he is taking a stance for small business and refusing to let large companies push him around.

The two arguments both offer very different perspectives and both conjure up images of two completely different sides as to where business and technology is taking us as a society. While there is no immediate right and wrong, it becomes more clear that there are ways to convict a given audience that are perhaps more successful than others.