Fear the Future

Joshua Ortega strives to open the eyes of his blind audience to the dangers of bottled water and the future problems the water industry has in store. Ortega, writer of The Seattle Times, uses literary devices and rhetorical tools in his article, “Water Wars: Bottling Up the World’s Supply of H2O,” to persuade his readers to boycott bottled water and drink tap water. Joshua Ortega focuses on the past by using strong diction, allusions, and other tools to make us worry about the future and take action. This builds his credibility and appeal to both pathos and logos while convincing his readers to be aware of the contaminated bottled water and the privatization of water industries, which is the “most important issue we will face in our lifetime.”
Joshua Ortega begins his article with astonishing facts that cause his readers to be aware of the water problems and fear what could result from those problems in the future. He states, “Out of 103 brands of bottled water, one-third contained traces of arsenic and E. coli. This means that out of a sample of 1,000 bottles sold in the U.S., at least 300 would have some level of chemical contamination.” Ortega has presented the facts of bottled water, not just his opinion, which allow the audience to trust his stance. The appeal to the logistics by using statistics emotionally affects the reader. Because water is something we all consume and have to consume to live, hearing that at least 300 out of 1,000 bottles of water have some level of chemical contamination causes the reader to rethink choosing bottled water over tap water. Ortega’s use of harsh statistics was smart because the audience cannot argue against them, but rather dwell on them as the facts linger in their minds. This strategic way of starting his article built Ortega’s credibility, left the readers rethinking their choice of drinking bottled water, and appealed to logos.
Joshua Ortega furthers his emotional appeal by using overstatements which cause the audience to worry about the water issue. First, Ortega quotes the vice president of World Bank, “The wars of the next century will be about water." It is true that water will be battle in the future but an economical one rather than a physical one. This causes the audience to fear what could come from the water problems and want to take action to avoid war, especially because the United States has been in a war with the Middle East for years. Ortega also emotionally captures the audience by stating, “Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head.” He is relating this to having a war over water. This causes strong emotions to be felt by the audience. “Putting a gun to your head” sends negative feelings to the audience and puts the issue of war breaking out over water on a more important level. It causes the reader to become emotionally attached to the issue and to consider what the outcomes will be if they do not take action. Joshua Ortega’s use of overstatements pushes and persuades his audience to take action against the environmentally unfriendly and contaminated bottled water.
Joshua Ortega also uses allusions to build his credibility and cause fearful feelings of the past to be revisited by the audience. By referring to major events that have happened in the past, Ortega shows that he has done his research and knows what he is talking about. This allows the reader to rely on his facts and trust his opinions. Ortega alludes to an event in 1998 where the water supply of Sydney, Australia was contaminated with cryptosordium and giardia and the public was not informed when the parasites were first discovered. By using an event that has already taken place, the issue becomes a reality to the audience. The reader is able to see that real problems have occurred in the water industry and that the public has been affected by this. Ortega also brings up Iraq when stating, “So much fuss was made about France’s opposition to the war in Iraq, yet there was little or no public outcry over the selling of U.S. water companies to foreign interest.” Ortega puts the water crisis on the same level as the war in Iraq. By doing this the audience become emotionally attached. Most U.S. citizens do not want to be in war and have been drastically affected by the war in Iraq. When the audience reads this, they fear what could come in the future with the consumption of bottled water and the privatization of water industries. Lastly, Ortega alludes to Enron so that he can relate the water issue to something his audience is familiar with. He explains, “An energy crisis was bad enough--just imagine if the Enron scenario happened with water.” No one wants to go through another Enron scenario or have that scare again. By reminding the audience of that situation and paralleling it with the water scenario, the audience again fears the consequences of not taking action. The use of allusions in Ortega’s article relates the future water problems with major events that have occurred in the past. This emotionally attaches the audience to the problem and gives them an idea of possible outcomes of the water crisis.
Joshua Ortega captures his readers’ attention through his tone and diction and persuades them to take action. Ortega uses a stern tone and fear to scare his readers into taking the water issue seriously. Fear raises an emotionally that causes people to either restrain from action or act to prevent consequences. Ortega shows his stern, straightforward tone by claiming, “Water corporations exist to make profits—not to preserve water’s quality or affordability.” He says things point blank, just how he sees them. This tone provides the reader with trust in the author that they are not being manipulated. This technique is beneficial for Ortega and allows him to persuade the audience and get them emotionally involved. The author also uses strong diction that emotionally ties his readers to the topic. For example, he states, “Indeed, it is a strange day when the same corporation that makes bombs and missiles also owns your water, an “industry” that putatively will be the major focus of this century’s wars.” The emotions of the audience are being affected by the word choices. Bombs and missiles send out negative vibes that cause the reader to have a negative feeling towards the water companies. He could have replaced the words bombs and missiles with defense mechanisms that protect our country. That would have caused the reader to view these companies in a more heroic way rather than viewing them as cruel, war instigating companies. People fear weapons such as bombs and missiles. Therefore, Ortega does a good job in placing fear towards the companies that own our water in his audience.
Getting an audience emotionally attached and involved in your writing is one of the most effective ways to persuade them. In the article, “Water Wars: Bottling Up the World’s Supply of H2O,” writer Joshua Ortega powerfully appeals to pathos and successfully gets his readers to listen to and side with his opinion. Ortega’s use of literary tools such as overstatements and allusions builds his credibility, which allows his readers to trust his writing. The author’s diction and tone furthers the audiences trust in him and opens the audiences’ eyes to a new stance on bottled water. Ortega persuades his readers to go out and take action by placing fear of future problems in their minds.