Many swear by them, while others swear
that they’re no good. Energy drinks have been controversial since they hit the
market. This article focuses on a letter, written by Richard Blumenthal, Richard
Durbin, and Edward Markey, to Mark Emmert President of the NCAA, regarding the
sale of Energy drinks at collegiate sporting events. The official style is
clear in the letter, as the congressmen shields the fact that they are scolding
Emmert by euphemizing his explanation of his reason for writing. The letter is
also is very bureaucratic, passive, and verbose to further mask what is
essentially a reprimand.
I accessed the article via Blumenthal’s
government webpage where it is presented with a short introduction under “Press
Release.” This press release section of the website is filled with accounts of
the actions of Blumenthal’s actions as Senator. Whether this methodical
documentation of actions and letters and announcements is required or by choice
it certainly sheds light on the intentions behind elements of style which we
see in letters like the one in question. Having your business as public as
politician do certainly warrants caution regarding the tone of writing and how
letters like this one are perceived not only by the recipient of the writing
but also any constituents who read the piece. When the senators wrote the
letter to Emmert they would have not only been concerned about offending the
president of the NCAA but also hurting chance of re-election or prospects for
other political opportunities.
The first four words of the letter set
the tone for the entire message. “We write to inquire,” it begins, immediately
setting a non-threatening tone. These four words not only make the senators’
message seem non-harmful; they also start the letter off in the proper and
bureaucratic language you would expect to hear from senators. The letter
continues to explain that the senators are inquiring as to what actions Emmert “is
taking or contemplating to educate student-athletes and school athletic
departments about the potential health risks posed by energy drinks for young
people and to limit the presence of energy drinks at NCAA sponsored events.”
This is where the senators essentially euphemize the intent of their letter. It
is clear that their opinion is that energy drinks have no place being marketed
at NCAA sporting events, however it is not clear whether or not this is
Emmert’s opinion, and the fact that a nearly identical letter was sent to the
Executive Director of National Federation of State High School Associations it
can be assumed that this letter was not only sent to inquire as to what actions
Emmert planned to take, but in fact to persuade him that there were indeed
actions that needed to be taken.
The letter goes on to discuss the
downfalls and health risks associated with energy drinks which would serve to
persuade the reader, Emmert, to take actions to limit their availability at
NCAA events, if of course that is what they are trying to do. The letter states
that “according to a recent article in Pediatrics in
Review, an official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, many of the
claims made by energy drink companies lack sufficient scientific evidence.”
This sentence takes a very long time to get to the point, is wordy and it
maintains a certain amount of passivity. Although it is not structurally
passive it allows the writers to essentially state that there is no evidence
for the claims made by energy drink companies without sounding too
argumentative. The letter even quotes a euphemistic phrase from the article
that it is citing. It reads, “heavy caffeine use can be a significant source of
morbidity in athletes,” Here it might be more effective to say death rather
than morbidity for the sake of the argument, but then again, tone is very
important.
“Other reports have pointed
out that the ingredients found in these drinks can cause dehydration, irregular
heartbeat, nausea, arrhythmia, and in some cases death,” is another sentence
from the letter that although it is not structurally passive it is wordy and
roundabout until the sentence feels passive. This sentence is also a very slow
starting one. Instead of presenting the studies to support their argument they
hide behind it. It is as if the senators are want to present the evidence that
supports their argument without owning said argument.
The senators writing the
letter also employed sentence combining techniques to make their letter even
more official. “This targeted marketing of young people appears to be working,
with estimates that 30 to 50 percent of adolescents reporting consumption of
energy drinks” is a sentence containing a relative clause. Complex use of
appositives is used to create, “Yet, according to a recent article in
Pediatrics in Review, an official journal of the American Academy of
Pediatrics, many of the claims made…” And noun substitute is heavily prevalent
in the overly complex statement, “As a national leader in interscholastic
sports and activities that help student-athletes, the NCAA can educate
students, schools, and athletic departments about the potential health risks
posed to young people by consuming energy drinks.”
The letter concludes
reminding Emmert that the senators look forward to hearing about the actions he
plans on taking and referring to the NCAA as a national leader in
interscholastic sports and activities that help student-athletes. This
euphemistic and bureaucratic buttering-up of Emmert closes the letter the same
way that it opens.
It is entirely logical that
the official style be utilized in this situation considering that senators need
to present themselves in a way that will allow them to be re-elected. It seems
like a shame, however, that the argument loses persuasive effect as a result.
It is clear in this letter that the official style is being utilized to obscure
the true intent of the letter. Perhaps, if the letter were written with a more
direct agenda. “Health issues are being linked to energy drinks. We believe
that, in light this, it is inappropriate for Energy drinks to be sold at NCAA
sporting events,” is a possible opening which gets straight to the point and
would likely be more conducive to a progressive discussion on the matter. The
question becomes “What is more important?” Are we so sensitive to the language
our politicians are using that we would be offended by a straight-forward
intent? Are we sacrificing productivity for politeness? Can’t we have both?
Spencer A
No comments:
Post a Comment