The documentary took a most effective technique by establishing a connection to the characters and the love and urgency they felt for one another and during the emergency. In fact, the story shows the feminine woman, with whom most people will be able to relate, and does not alienate viewers or prompt the m to bring up their defensiveness to start arguing immediately.
The ethos of the argument was therefore very strong. It built the emotional impact of the situation to promote empathy for the narrator. The story appealed to pathos arguments by saying that they prayed for her dying wife, and showed a very traditional, religious funeral service.
The logos of the argument were strong as well. They rightly took testimony from extremely credible sources for logos, rather than asking the emotionally, personally invested LGB individuals we saw to do that appeal. The neutral, medical and legal parties in the courtroom testified for us that the behaviors "fit the definition of discrimination in it's purest form." They clearly noted that same-sex couples were asked to provide proof, while heterosexual couples were given the privilege of assuming they were licensed to be together.
Claims were few and far between in this documentary, who sought to lead the viewers to the correct answer, rather than cause them to deal with an outright claim. At one moment, the claim from a professional that the widowed partner has "no rights" effectively used this strategy to push viewers to defend the GLB couples in question. In contrast, if the claim had been made that those couples "deserve full rights," it is less sympathetic and more debatable for the viewers, so they will lost their emotional tie ot the storyline. This is a policy claim,
A final claim was made that legislation needed to be passed such that what happened would never happen again. This is a policy claim. It was a fitting closing to a tale that all viewers undoubtedly respected, and could appreciate the need for increasing equality.
Leave a comment