The Denver Post editorial “Share Civic Center for Big Air event? You bet” (January 25th, 2011) strives to alleviate the public’s concern that steep ticket prices for the outdoor ski competition serves as an indicator that our public parks are falling victim to over-commercialization. The editor asserts that the elaborate freestyle ski event, made popular by similar events held in cities such as New York and San Francisco, is not a sign of bad things to come for Denver’s parks. The author achieves his purpose by utilizing the persuasive devices of recognizing the controversy, easy to follow deductive reasoning, and rhetorical examples that compel the audience to have a stake in the issue.
From the very beginning, the Post recognizes that not everyone is happy with the fact that a paid event is being hosted in a city park. The editor writes, “City parks are for the public. We get that.” In doing so, the editor effectively sympathizes with the public’s concern over whom the city parks really belong to. This establishes good will and cleverly serves to earn readers’ trust by simply regurgitating a contemporary maxim of sorts and conveying unwavering support for it. Such a strategy is useful in rhetoric such as this because it goes a longs ways in terms of drawing the opposition into the debate. Park advocates’ passionate disgust for the event being held in Civic Center Park is diffused at least temporarily by the editor’s willingness to throw something into the debate in which common ground can be found. This pays dividends in that most readers react positively early on in the editorial and therefore, are more likely to read the rest of the piece with interest and a greater sense of open-mindedness. This sets the stage for the Post’s elaboration on their theory that the Big Air event is not a sign of bad things to come for the city’s public parks.
The editorial continues with the inclusion of logical, deductive reasoning that solidifies the paper’s opinion. Essentially, the editor’s reasoning can be summarized like this: The ramp the skiers and boarders use is “breathtaking” and expensive. The public is fascinated by the event. Therefore, the ticket prices are justified by the sheer awe the event creates.
The deductive reasoning is straightforward for readers to follow and meticulously crafted with the inclusion of indisputable fact. The editor expresses the scope of the event by grasping readers’ attention with the rhetorical question “Have you actually seen the 106-foot-tall ramp on which snowboarders and skiers descend?” Besides using the proven technique of incorporating rhetorical questions into the piece (which inherently draws readers into the debate), the editor strengthens this strategy by going a step further and including a fact that later serves to justify the high cost of the event. The editor continues by elaborating on the 106-foot-tall ramp, its synthetic materials and man-made snow. This all cumulates into the $800k cost, the editor says. By this point in the editorial, the editor has persuaded some readers that the cost of the tickets are indicative of the great expense that goes into creating the spectacular event while emphasizing that no tax dollars are being spent.
The editor strengthens his argument by using rhetorical examples that serve to draw outsiders of the event into the unique atmosphere that the event brings to the neighborhoods surrounding Civic Center. The author discusses the aura that the undertaking of the event creates for those who live and work near the park. The author writes, “The spectacle has been worth witnessing even if you had no intention of buying a ticket to watch it.” This implies that the general public receives a unique kind of value out of the public park while the event is going on. This is important due to the very purpose of a park – and that purpose is to serve everyone. At the same time, the editorial makes it clear that the Big Air event is not the beginning of any type of commercialization trend for the city’s parks. In fact, the editor states that he is adamantly opposed to fencing off public parks for events such as this on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the editor encourages readers to appreciate the “breathtaking” event while it lasts.
No comments:
Post a Comment