Thinking about what effect "anti-gay" legislation would have on people, I started to wonder about the economic stand point of the bill. Would it negatively effect Arizona's economy, or would it not have any impact because Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill. Hillary Davis, a staff writer for Inside Tucson Business explored this topic after the veto came down. She discovered that while it did have a negative impact on Arizona's image, it would be a while before anyone really knew if it would be an economic disaster as well. She did a great job using logos and ethos, but the article lacked any type of emotion to it.
Davis used a lot of facts and reasoning in her work, allowing the audience to get a sense of credibility from her. She showed that she did indeed do a lot of research on this topic even though she came up with no clear answer to the economic question. " Be quick, be firm, be proactive and be unified against laws that can hurt tourism—an industry that accounts for 200,000 direct jobs in the state and more than $19 billion in annual spending, according to the Arizona Office of Tourism."(Davis) . This kind of language is an example of how she uses facts but really the article lacks anything concrete when it comes to showing the facts on a loss of business.
With ethos she uses other people and what they have to say concerning this issue to establish authority. Most of her information came from three main sources, Brent DeRaad, president and CEO of Visit Tucson; Kristen Jarnagin, Senior Vice President of Arizona Lodging and Tourism; and finally Stacy Murillo, director of public relations and communications for the Arizona Business Travel Association. They add authority to the article because of their positions and titles but they all say the same thing, which is you have to wait and see what the effects will be.
The article definitely lacked pathos. There was little to no emotion in the paper at all. It was very cut and dry as far as what the economy could do, but we would just have to wait and see. She should have gone into detail about the different business that wouldn't relocate to Arizona like they were planning to if the legislation made it into law. Also to add some emotion she could have discussed how the Super Bowl Host Committee wanted to move the upcoming Super Bowl out of Arizona, which would have made a huge impact economically. "The host committee for next year's Super Bowl warned Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) not to sign the controversial anti-gay bill known as SB 1062, warning that such a move would 'deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential' ahead of the big game." (www.huffingtonpost.com) A lot of business were counting on that for tourism income and that stirred up a ton of emotion.
Overall she did get her point across, that we would have to wait to see if this will have any impact economically on the state of Arizona. There wasn't a lot of substance there in the article to think that it was exceptionally written. To gain my attention the article should have shown more passion about the possible side effects this bill could have on the state. And how it damaged our state's image costing a lot of money on tourism. Also there were a few grammatical errors that also led me as the audience to think there wasn't a lot of time put into it.
Works Cited
Davis, Hillary. "Economic Effect of SB1062, If Any, Won't Be Known For Months." Inside Tucson Business 23.38 (2014): 4. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 10 Oct. 2014
Turkel. Amanda. "Super Bowl Host Committee Condemns Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062." 25 Feb. 2014. The Huffington Post. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment