Chris Rainier’s report and Barack Obama’s speech Comparison
Rainier’s reportage on the 2004 tsunami was written whilst in Indonesia 15 days after,
then published in The National Geographic News in 2005 where many read of the
horrific wave. Comparatively, Barack Obama’s speech at America’s Red Cross on
Hurricane Sandy was delivered during the ‘eye of the storm’, broadcast live to America.
Here, the President’s tone was colloquial, using conversational discourse markers,
“alright, first of all”, to address the nation clearly. There is a constant informal tone,
consolidated by high frequency, Germanic lexis. Obama needs to make his speech
accessible as the purpose is to reassure instructing on the next steps forward. Similarly,
the reportage informs people, but those in a different location to the event. Just as the
speech’s audience is American, (the event occurred there), so is the reportage’s, even
though the tsunami did not hit there. Perhaps the affected countries are a secondary
audience, but for the majority it is American readership.
In Rainier’s reportage he begins by describing the event alluding to another disaster
presuming a certain American generation, “we grew up with.” He does this by using
inclusive pronouns, “we”, to develop an initial relationship with the reader. He goes on
to provide a first-person narrative using present tense verbs, “lying”, “decaying”, in
succession to imitate urgency. As this is a narrative these consequent verbs could
suggest the action around him is flying, whilst the volunteers are struggling to keep up
with the increasing demand for aid. Both this description and narrative are conventions
of a reportage, informing in a journalistic manner. However, this also defies conventions
of first person as he also uses second, “you”, to refer to general population there. The
mid-section of this piece shows Rainier’s personal response to the tsunami – he uses
imagery and allusion to communicate emotions toward what he is witnessing as well as
shifting to the singular pronoun, “I.” These 5th, 6th and 7th paragraphs are short, fast-
paced and in non-chronological order, suggesting these are Rainier’s first impressions:
snapshots of memories that strike him, a fragmented first glance at the whirlwind
around him. In this second section, most of the writing is pathos, gaining empathy for
not only the victims, but for Rainier himself. In paragraph 7, logos is used to explain
shocking stats in a way that could be dehumanising, “95,000 dead”, skips the
humanising noun, “people.” Finally, we experience a shift in tone from Rainier when
talking about U.S military aid. Here, he is flying the American flag, juxtaposing the
“horror” and “magnitude” with positive lexis, and simultaneously using opposing
pronouns of ‘us and them.’ This attitude elevates America whilst advocating for help
through ethos – what can America do to help?
Dissimilarly, Obama’s speech begins with thanks in a colloquial tone confirmed using
first name address, “Gail and Charlie.” Unlike Rainier, he does not jump in by describing
the action – he frames his speech with an understandable structure. His use of the
personal pronoun, “I” here shows us that although informal, Obama is stepping up to
role of President addressing the nation. This is an alternate way of creating a
relationship with his listeners, just like when Rainier used allusion to build his. Moving
