Leonard Pitts at it again in his article” Manti Te’o story offers lessons: Better connected who have one online, farther apart” In this article Pitts asserts that although the increase in technology is a good thing it increasingly puts a void in the physical communications we have with one another, a more prevalent case being the Manti Te’o incident.
Pitts supports his argument by using explanatory diction to explain his definition of relationship, by using historical syntax to prove the point that America is now in the screen decade and by using Pathos to pull sympathy from the audience by introducing catfish which is a television show that proves that Manti is not the only one to go through such a hoax.
Pitt’s purpose is to remind people that the noticeable increase in the use of technology can in so many ways be helpful but it can also be hurtful in ways also.
Pitts puts on display the changes people go through and guides the people reading the article to question their unreal reality with life and also how the ability to just communicate on a screen maybe great but to never forget the physical part of just being able to hold your love ones hand.
It is apparent that over the years we have developed in the field of technology and that we still are ever rapidly changing every day. But in this article Pitts is not just saying that technology is changing but Pitts is trying to make the audience understand that technology is not the only one’s changing but the people are because of it also.
Pitts is trying to grasp how through technology how can we have mutual loving relationships with someone you have never had interaction with in the real world not virtual physically. Pitts has a completely different definition of a relationship than those who have one online, as described in the article. Pitts explanation for the relationships online apart of the communication revolution. Pitts still does not really completely understand it Pitts state the physical side by saying, “Some of us remember a day when she wasn’t your girlfriend unless she’d allowed you to hold her hand or steal a kiss.
You know, physical contact in an analog world”. ”But that was then. ” This Pitt believes as the official standard for a way of describing his girlfriend back when Pitt was younger. But the realization is that Pitt didn’t have access to computer like now and neither did Pitts have the technology to even see a picture, which some might say is physical. Pitts is not blind to innovation he just simply does not want the influence of technology to slowly but surely separate us from face to face interaction and basically diffuse his audience from one another.
This is because Pitts understand the consequence of when people start to tune others out and also the phases of the world can go through. A perfect example that Pitts gave as an consequence would be this example, One is reminded, in a twisted sense, of the outcry over a 1964 news story out of New York. Though key details were later refuted, the initial version had 38 people watching from their windows as a young woman named Kitty Genovese was raped and killed, but declining to come to her aid because they did not want to get involved.
That incident became an iconic illustration of an abiding sense that people were becoming alienated from one another. This tragic event is what Pitts is trying to get across to the people of today time and to the future. If it takes someone being battered and abused and then murder to get some type of acknowledgment to the problem of people not have enough physical interaction, Pitts is saying people must really have lost their minds. For people to first actually watch the horrible brutality of murder is a sick crime itself, it takes a u person who feel unmoved to reality to sit and watch a murder and that’s the virtual world does the same.
Pitts shows the audience some compassion by saying that also historically there have been phases of different things that become popular to do in the natural world. If that was a legitimate fear 49 years ago, how much more legitimate is it in 2013, when the streets are filled with people who pass one another yet never see one another, sit next to one another yet never share so much as a nod of acknowledgement, so enrapt are they – we – in words and images on tiny screens.
Indeed, if the ’70s were the Me Decade and the ’80s were the Greed Decade, it seems entirely likely historians of the future will remember this as the Screen Decade, the years spent looking down. This is a perfect example of that maybe there is hope for us to change because it seems as if every new decade there is a new trend. Pitts assures us that we might get better buy saying that future historians will call this age the Screen Decade therefore making an inference change and that we will get past it.
In terms of sympathy for the hoax or publicity stunt of Manti Teo’ it makes his argument more understandable and not as impossible as some people might think. Pitts uses pathos to pull sympathy from the audience by introducing catfish which is a television show that proves that Manti is not the only one to go through such a hoax. So while some people are asking what Te’o knew and when he knew it, some of us simply marvel that we have come into a time when such a story is even possible. Apparently, however, what supposedly happened to Te’o is common enough that it even has a name: catfishing.
The relative material makes Manti’s story but any more less bewildering for Pitts. For Pitts its not the question to ask if he lied or not about it being real or a hoax. The question is why do people think that virtual relationships are just the same as physical one? As Pitts kept writing in the article you can see the sea of confusion in his writings. Pitts repeatedly refers to the older readers of the work he posses and says comments such as, “ And the new norm cannot help but seem a little odd to those of us who remember when a relationship — or at least an intimate one — presupposed that you and the other person had actually met.
Pitts says this in terms of almost asking a question as if do we have to change also, Pitts meaning people in the age group that was in school the same time as Pitts. Pitts in this article try’s to somehow figure out the reason why physical relationships are starting to become a thing of the past and virtual relationships something of the future? Not only is Pitts confused about relationships but overall people relations, the question I am sure runs through his head is it time to just cut out the tongs and keep the fingers?
Anyways, Pitts does a tremendous job in trying to justify his confusion and also try to understand the other side. Pitts supports his argument by using explanatory diction to explain his definition of relationship, by using historical syntax to prove the point that America is now in the screen decade and by using Pathos to pull sympathy from the audience by introducing catfish which is a television show that helps the controversy that surrounds Manti Te’o and forever will.
Cite this Rethorical Anaylisis Leonard Pitts
Rethorical Anaylisis Leonard Pitts. (2016, Oct 10). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/rethorical-anaylisis-leonard-pitts/