A Motivating Call to Action

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines motivation as the act or process of motivating. This one word can summarize the message that was meant to be sent out by Joshua Ortega when he wrote “Water Wars: Bottling up the World's Supply of H2O” for the Seattle Times. The kind of motivation sent out in his message was not any ordinary type of motivation; it was the motivation to act. He did so with the citizens of Seattle, Washington in mind. Throughout the article Joshua Ortega uses disastrous hypothetical and real-life situations, obscure raw statistics and benefits of switching from bottled to tap in relation to what it is that the readers of the Seattle Time already know and believe in order to convince them of the need to switch from bottled to tap water. The writer does not only uses the elements previously mentioned but also puts to use a whole arsenal of appeals to pathos, logos, and ethos.
When Ortega is trying to convince the people of Seattle of something of the upmost importance, he does not mince words with them. This holds true when reviewing the style of which Ortega uses to begin his article. He begins with the opening statement of, “Clean, unpolluted, affordable water. There is nothing more important in the world-but it’s in serious danger.” This use of diction helps convey the arguable fact that water is the most important thing in the world. With that statement might come the reasoning of “If water is the most important thing in the world, shouldn’t we be worried if it is in danger?” This type of thinking would be reason enough for the reader to direct his or her attention to what it is they are reading. The tone of “Now that you know what’s going on, shouldn’t we do something about it?” is carried on throughout the paper. It can be seen when Ortega describes what could happen if water was privatizes and sold on the market to the highest bidder. He ends that paragraph with the statement, “Otherwise water will be subject to the same whims of business as any other commodity.” With the comparison of water to any other kind of commodity the previously mentioned mind set is visible. It makes for an interesting article that has the potential to motivate the citizens of Seattle to swift and blind action.
This articles ideal audience is that of the Seattle area. After inquiring about the general ideals of those from that general area, it is my understanding that the people of the Seattle area are more conservative when it comes to issues dealing with the earth and the environment. This is made clear by the many references to history, and statistics that would appeal to the majority of the people in Seattle. An example of this is when the author mentions that only 10 percent of all the bottles sold here in the US were recycled. The reason that this reference is so powerful is due to the fact that Seattle is big on recycling and with a reference like that it is almost sure to grab the attention of its readers. This is also seen in the last part of the article that is more of a self made question and answer session with Joshua Ortega, there to calm all you fears that have been developed just by reading the article.
It is interesting to see how fast Ortega moves to establish the fact that tap water is the best alternative to bottled water, considering the audience that he is focusing his message on. This is initiated with a statement, that is really an overstatement, that says “From health and environmental concerns to the very question of who should control the Earth’s water supply, the issue can be distilled into a simple opening proposition: tap or bottled water?” It can be determined that the use of this overstatement is a push to oversimplify the argument at hand and help the reader hone in on what it is that the author wants the reader to focus on. Once the readers of the Seattle Times focuses its attention on what it is that Ortega wants, Ortega’s job of convincing to action becomes much easier.
As the writer continues his efforts to convey his point, he uses figurative speaking that in some respects builds his credibility as a writer. He speaks of foreign businesses that are buying U.S. water companies and also refers to the privatizing of water companies as a problem rather than a solution. The point of Ortega bringing all this up is to help the reader understand that there needs to be concern over who controls our water and, by extension, whether we should use bottled of tap water.
The appeal to emotion as a motivator is one of the more common factors that Ortega uses to convey his message to his Seattle sudience. It can be seen in the allusion that recounts the time when the government of Ontario, Canada deregulated its water protection infrastructure and privatized its water testing labs. As mentioned in the article, it was “…disastrous for many communities. In the small Canadian town of Walkerton, seven people died and more than 200 were sickened from drinking E. coli-contaminated water in 2000. ”. When reading this story the audience is meant to feel some sort of emotion. Before this allusion to the past was referenced, the author had built up a set of statistics and facts that should have caused some sort of worry in the reader and now with this sad story being recalled the call on the emotion as a motivator is more readily to be answered. If the anecdote about the tragedy isn’t enough for the reader, Ortega decides to follow it up with a reference to Third World Situations that, as he states, are “even worse”. It is safe to say that the writer, with these two references of sadness, one close to home in Canada and another on the needy foreign soil of Third World countries, plays on the emotion of sadness and heartfelt pity as a motivation to action.
Another time when the author plays on the reader’s emotion is in the fifth to the last paragraph where he uses the simile of “Water however, is a necessity. Taking away your water is the same as putting a gun to your head. This is an unacceptable proposition.” Just as before, the audience is meant to feel an emotion after reading this passage. The one that strikes me first is that of “How dare you” or of pride. Notice how the author phrased that statement. The notion of putting a gun to one’s head is powerful enough, but when coupled with what has already been said concerning the topic of our water, this statement has quite to mental impact on the reader. It was also followed by a statement that characterized the resilience of the human spirit. The connotation of putting one’s foot down as demonstrated in the previously mentioned sentence is a way for Ortega to ask the reader to choose a side on the issue if he or she has not done so already.
The closing remarks of the article carry a powerful message to the audience through the medium of words and tone. Ortega not only plays on the emotion of fear but also on the strong emotion of patriotism. In the last paragraph he closes with, “Above all else, remember that it’s not too late. Clean affordable water is still a reality in this country. It is our patriotic duty as Americans to ensure that it stays that way.” If this is not a call to rally the troops around old glory then I don’t know what is. This powerful closing remark about making sure that water is cheap and affordable in this country and about how it’s our patriotic duty to do so is a play on the already readied to action reader. By the time the reader has come to this piece of the article he or she has been bombarded with everything from hypothetical wars over water to heart wrenching stories of death and turmoil. It is safe to say that Ortega’s play on the emotion of the audience as well as their reasoning in order to funnel the reader into the position of not only them willing to agreeing with him but also placing in them a call to action.