Analysis of my Rhetorical Situation

Thirty Meter Telescope Controversy

The rhetorical situation is a key thing to consider before undertaking any project, not just writing. One needs to know who they are writing for, and let their audience know the author's purpose and the author's own interest in the subject.

Hubble Heritage. "Star-Forming Region Sharpless 2-106" 12/15/11 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

Who's the AUDIENCE?
The potential audience for this piece is very large and diverse. It includes astronomers, engineers of all varieties, anthropologists, environmentalists, the Mauna Kea locals, economists, students, professionals, and the media. As such this controversy was written about in many different sources with different audiences: Forbes for the business and econ people, Scientific American for regular people who wish to learn about easy-to-read science topics, collegiate papers published by universities. there are so many sources. Local(to Hawaii) papers, local universities, local bloggers all discuss this controversy. Most of the players value both science and religion, but this conflict about the TMT is about science or religion.

Who's the AUTHOR?
The author? That's me! My name is Erica Mohr. I'm a pisces, was born in a feloniously speeding mini-van and I love make a mean cinnamon roll. I'm also studying optical engineering, economics, and the most efficient ways to nap. While I don't really know what I want to do with optics, part of the reason I come to the UA is because we're building one of the largest telescopes in the world, the Giant Magellan Telescope. I think that is ridiculously amazing because with this telescope, they want to look back into time by catching light emanating from the Big Bang!! Basically, I really want to get into space (research, but being an astronaut would be cool too). This is why I wish to talk about the thirty meter telescope, why something so amazing with the potential to discover mind-blowing information about the galaxy we live in, can be halted in favor of preserving a piece of Earth that means a lot to its inhabitants. Which goes right into a discussion of my purpose with this piece.

What's my PURPOSE?
I can't claim to know what's right- scientific discovery or preserving centuries old culture and religion. I intend to boldly go where writers have gone before and try to represent all the sides in this controversy in a video essay to the best of my abilities. One of my main goals is to represent all sides as accurately and respectfully as I can, for science and religion is involved. I want the die-hard science nerds, myself included, to realize that progress isn't all about science. I don't want them to dismiss the reasons for this setback of a 1.8 billion research project as trivial protests from people protecting their religion, who don't care about science, because they do care about science. I also don't want the religious people to dismiss the scientists as cold-hearted lab-coats who don't care about tradition, because they do care about culture and religion.