This article is about two sisters who are serving double life sentences in Mississippi for being implicated in an $11 robbery in which no one was hurt. These sisters are appealing to the governor for a pardon from their sentences because of one of the sister's failing health (both of her kidneys are failing). The governor has already pardoned five murderers from life sentences, so why not these two sisters?
The audience for this article is comprised of the citizens of Mississippi, readers of the New York Times, and political activists. I also think this story is structured to appeal to people in general because it uses pathos to make us feel compassion for the sisters and their plight to receive a pardon, including a quote from their mother in the article.
The New York Times is read mostly by people ages 25-50 who have higher education, own their own home, have high paying jobs, and a full-time employee. The audience here is a well-educated and more well off than average person, who doesn't necessarily fear job loss of financial insecurity.
It is incredible how through the use of rhetoric lives can be saved. Your analysis of the audience is accurate I think.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting view into our justice system. Some punishments seem too extreme while others don't seem strict enough. I bet this article is very intriguing!
ReplyDeleteI like how you imply that those people who are reading the article tend to be well off. It shows why an appealing human interest story is effective. For people who have more than most, seeing someone in a bad situation really hits home so the rhetoric is effective.
ReplyDeleteWow this makes me want to go read this article! Good job analyzing what kind of readers the New York Times has, showing how that might affect the reaction to this article.
ReplyDeleteHmm that sounds like a cool article! I like how you state that the article appeals to the general population, but then go on to describe the audience more specifically.
ReplyDelete