Speaker: Leonard Pitts, a democratic journalist for the Miami Herald. Pitts writes columns regarding social and political issues twice a week and has received a Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
Occasion: A woman fourteen weeks pregnant died, but was forced to remain on life support for the baby's sake. This has created an uproar around the nation, and Pitt's wrote a column expressing his opinion on the situation.
Audience: The audience contains the Miami Herald's regular readers, especially those who follow Pitts. It also includes people who are interested in the Texas Government and those who followed this woman's story.
Purpose: Pitt's wants to create anger in the reader at the Texas government for being hypocritical. He argues that the party for small government is the same party that constantly regulates people's personal lives. He wants the reader to support the decision to remove the woman from life support, which he believes is the family's decision.
Subject: A woman was declared dead due to a blood clot in her lungs by the John Peter Smith Hospital. She was fourteen weeks pregnant with a child when she died. The family wants to take her off life support, but because of Texas law, she remains on life support and will continue to remain on life support until the child is born.
Tone: Pitt's has an angry tone throughout his paper, directed at the Texas government. He believes the Republican party wants small government except when they want to regulate people's personal lives.
Leonard Pitts uses an emotional and angry tone throughout his article discussing a woman being forced to remain on life support due to being fourteen weeks pregnant. After talking about a family in the opposite situation, one where the family is fighting to keep their brain dead daughter alive, Pitts says a family has the right to do whatever they want with their loved ones and questions why the state is “interposing itself in one of the most wrenching and intimate moral choices a family can ever make[.]” The words “wrenching and “intimate” indicate the emotional tone Pitts takes throughout the article and makes the audience feel upset for the family and angry at the Texas government. These strong emotions help Pitts with his argument that the Texas government has no say in this sitatuion. Later in the article, Pitts uses an emotional and angry tone again, saying “[The state's interference] has reduced its mother to a thing, and robbed her family of its right to say a dignified and proper farewell.” By describing the woman as a “thing” Pitts disconcerts the audience and effectively demonstrates the law's detrimental impact on the family.
Occasion: A woman fourteen weeks pregnant died, but was forced to remain on life support for the baby's sake. This has created an uproar around the nation, and Pitt's wrote a column expressing his opinion on the situation.
Audience: The audience contains the Miami Herald's regular readers, especially those who follow Pitts. It also includes people who are interested in the Texas Government and those who followed this woman's story.
Purpose: Pitt's wants to create anger in the reader at the Texas government for being hypocritical. He argues that the party for small government is the same party that constantly regulates people's personal lives. He wants the reader to support the decision to remove the woman from life support, which he believes is the family's decision.
Subject: A woman was declared dead due to a blood clot in her lungs by the John Peter Smith Hospital. She was fourteen weeks pregnant with a child when she died. The family wants to take her off life support, but because of Texas law, she remains on life support and will continue to remain on life support until the child is born.
Tone: Pitt's has an angry tone throughout his paper, directed at the Texas government. He believes the Republican party wants small government except when they want to regulate people's personal lives.
Leonard Pitts uses an emotional and angry tone throughout his article discussing a woman being forced to remain on life support due to being fourteen weeks pregnant. After talking about a family in the opposite situation, one where the family is fighting to keep their brain dead daughter alive, Pitts says a family has the right to do whatever they want with their loved ones and questions why the state is “interposing itself in one of the most wrenching and intimate moral choices a family can ever make[.]” The words “wrenching and “intimate” indicate the emotional tone Pitts takes throughout the article and makes the audience feel upset for the family and angry at the Texas government. These strong emotions help Pitts with his argument that the Texas government has no say in this sitatuion. Later in the article, Pitts uses an emotional and angry tone again, saying “[The state's interference] has reduced its mother to a thing, and robbed her family of its right to say a dignified and proper farewell.” By describing the woman as a “thing” Pitts disconcerts the audience and effectively demonstrates the law's detrimental impact on the family.