Margaret Wente, author of the editorial Polar Bears Don’t Need Us to Save Them has undertaken an in-depth evaluation of the issues and concerns that scientists have raised regarding polar bears over time. The subject that the author has discussed in the editorial is not just debated but is of serious concern for the scientists’ fraternity. Discussion of such an important and serious issue has been well presented in the editorial by the author with the help of variation in tone.
The author has made use of logical grounds to explain her point of view about polar bears. At the beginning of the article, readers are more likely to find out that the author is agreeing with the stance of scientists to take polar bears to temporary bear parks. This has been backed up by the author with the usage of emotional appeal. The author has framed a ground for the readers to understand one point of view regarding the safety of polar bears in places such as Churchill (Wente).
As readers continue to read the article, they are more likely to find out that the author shapes another side of the debate i.e. polar bears do not need any support from humans. Polar bears need to be left alone. This merely means that humans do not want to save polar bears for the sake of nature, but their purposes. Herein, readers can find out that the author has eliminated any incidence of bias from her writing. In this way, readers can justify their point of view. At this point, it can also be stated by critics that the author is being sloppy about polar bear testing by humans. Researches are being carried out to find cures for polar bears which are dying because of global warming. Thus, blood samples for testing cannot be considered completely wrong as done by the author (Wente).
It is easier to note that the author has presented several logical accounts in the article which makes readers have a clear see-through focus on the subject. On one hand, it is the problem of polar bears feeding because of global warming which should be solved by humans if they send polar bears to the North. While on the other hand, it is the constant brutal testing on polar bears being done by humans in the name of their research work (Prinsen).
Furthermore, the article is directed towards a general yet heterogeneous audience. Considering this aspect into focus, it is easy to conclude that the tone and usage of words are rather easier. It is due to this reason that readers would be able to understand the severity of polar bear subjects among scientists. Margaret has also allowed audiences to assess the perspectives of Andrew Derocher and Zac Unger on the issue of polar bears. This act of Margaret has allowed her to send out the message between the lines i.e. people do not call for statistics and logic behind assertions that are made for natural expeditions. This is in the context of the point raised in defense of polar bears being deprived of food due to global warming. Zac Unger’s voice in the article makes this message more obvious because he has taken a relative stance on the polar bear problems. Ultimately, it was found out that the measure of polar bears in the world is not increasing but has rather increased over the past couple of years. Thus, the stance of the author to send out the message to the audience regarding assessing the right statistics before forming a perspective is commendable (Prinsen).
However, by the end of the article, it can be evaluated that the author has tried to convey her point of view i.e. humans, most importantly, scientists need to focus on research rather than making it difficult for polar bears to flexibly adjust to their habitats. Such an ending to the article is more likely to leave readers to think about the brutality of humans against polar bears more than the other side of the issue. For most people, this approach may be effective since the author has mentioned all the logic behind the assertion of each side of the issue.
Wente, Margaret. Polar bears don’t need us to save them. 2013. Web.