Time for the very last puff The Editorial from The Daily messenger, in their opinion piece entitled “Time for the Very Last Puff’ responds to the issue of smoking being a “serious, costly, health hazard”. It is clear that The Editorial feel as though smoking is a serious danger to the community and it is up to society to put and end to it. The Editorial approaches the issue with a sarcastic tone, which dismisses the opposing views in a passive aggressive manner.
This sways the reader by having them join in on the “joke”. The Editorials main audience for this article loud be all current smokers as well as family and friends of smokers that could encourage them to quit their “toxic” and “poisonous” habits. The Editorial begins their opinion piece with a reference to the regulations Of smoking in hospitals. Stating that while patients die inside hospitals from smoking related causes the medical staff is outside freely “lighting it up”.
This evokes anger in the reader as it highlights the fact that there are people dying from smoking and yet there are others that take their health for granted. The use of short sharp sentences such as, “this is not a good look” and “no mooing anywhere” creates a punch and is used to grab the readers attention by emphasizing the Editorials argument that smoking should be put to an end. This impacts the reader as it is a more powerful communication and adds ‘thoughtfulness” to what is being said as it give the reader space to consider what is being presented.
The piece then shifts into a more vindictive tone as The Editorial begins a series of attacks towards smokers. They present the argument that “smoking is a serious, costly health hazard” and that smokers cannot continue to put “themselves and others at risk”. This puts a forward a forceful idea that smoking is putting others in the community at risk of harm. This appeals to fear, as it would make the reader feel as though they may be put in harms way due to the actions of smokers.
The phrase “war on smoking” is also used to add seriousness to the matter as the thought of “war” has many negative connotations which would make the reader feel as though they are being threaten or put in a position of danger. The Editorials use of the image, shot by Andrew De La Ere, presents a visual representation of how “unsightly/’ the habit of smoking is. The image shows a sand-filled ashtray full of cigarette butts, this image is used to evoke disgust in the reader as it makes cigarettes look like trash.
This would make the reader feel as though smokers are not only ruining their own lives, but also creating an unhealthy environment for those around them. This appeals to health and the desire to protect the environment, as people do not like to see their community being treated like a giant ashtray. Next the columnist begins a strongly worded evidenced-based approach by discussing the declining percentage of regular smokers. The Editorial begins to bring in numerous sources of evidence such as Anti-Cancer Council data and the survey results of Victorians from 1998 to 2006.
This use of scientific statistics shows the reader that The Editorial offers an expertise point of view into the issue and has genuine factual evidence to back up their arguments. This would reassure the reader that they are taking advice from a trustworthy source. The Editorial state that “people who give up smoking enjoy far better health”, this would encourage the reader to side with The Editorial as it states the benefits of quitting smoking. The reader is exposed to the positive effects of not smoking, which would influence them to quiet and also encourage others to do so as well.
In the Editorials final paragraph they use emotive language such as “assault” and “retaliation” to instill fear in the reader and imply the message that smoking is something that is harmful and must be fought against. This use Of words would make the reader feel as though they are being attacked, or being put in danger. This is further emphasized when The Editorial refers to smoking as “the enemy’, this impacts the reader as it adds negative annotation to smoking.
The reader is positioned to feel as though they are apart of the “war against the weed” with the use of inclusive language such as “We must all join this battle against smoking’ and “we must fight bravely’. The use of inclusive language paired with the repetition of the word “we’ makes the reader feel as though they are now automatically part of the issue and it is up to them to put an end to it. It reinforces the argument that smoking needs to be put to and end and drills that message into the readers mind.