Tyson pieces

After reading Neil deGrasse Tyson's "The Case For Space: Why We Should Keep Reaching For the Stars" and watching "The Astronaut Session", I have come to a better understanding of how to capture the attention of different audiences on the same topic of discussion based on various stylistic approaches.

In Tyson's "The Case For Space", he communicates the topic of space travel and the dilemmas space programs have faced over recent decades. In this piece, there is much emphasis placed on why the United States entered space in the first place, which overlaps with his "The Astronaut Session" piece. In "The Astronaut Session", Tyson invites three comedians and an astronaut from Columbia's first launch to discuss the basics of space and space travel in a humorous fashion. Although the academic aspect of this piece is scarce, Tyson brings to the table the discussion of our fight against Russia and our attempt to "win" by achieving better advancements than the Russians. He claims that we are not born to be space creatures but rather we only have desires to further our space advancements when another country is trying to do it, too. China and their hopes of reaching Mars is mentioned playfully in "The Astronaut Session", yet it is not taken lightly in "The Case For Space"; Tyson writes that Obama has mentioned plans of landing on Mars, but there are a lot of barriers in his way, ranging from taxpayer dollars to his own political party.

In "The Astronaut Session", I feel as though Tyson is trying to gain the attention of the general public that enjoys entertainment -- college students procrastinating their studies, blue-collar workers that end their work day with a seat on the couch, and all comedic fans alike -- because a majority of the general public has access to some sort of device in which this episode of StarTalk can be accessed. Just like any other comedy show, there is a serious moment or two in the session, and Tyson reaches those few moments when he discusses the workings of gravity and his opinions of Bush. In his other piece "The Case For Space", I think he is trying to relay a more serious message to academics and people interested in American politics. Unfortunately, American politics has a tremendous amount of control over most of the things that happen within this country and I think Tyson is very clever to reach out to this type of audience. Also, when science academics read this article, they simultaneously have a better understanding of American politics and possible reasons why advances in sciences that they support haven't been completed.

Between the two pieces, Tyson has one main underlying purpose: to gain the attention of people to the important issue of space advancements and limitations. Tyson uses two different stylistic approaches in his pieces to ensure that his purpose is met: academic, opinionated writing and comedic writing. Although "The Case For Space" is filled with his own views on the issue and opinions, he has well-thought out reasoning to support himself against heated politicians. He frequently mentions historic events, such as the assassination of Kennedy and its influence on future space advancements. He also simplifies the current issue of America "not having enough money" down to a half of a penny, something that is difficult to argue against. His StarTalk piece has a comedic vibe to gain the attention of those interested in pop-culture by adding three comedians and a real-life astronaut. This piece is meant to take the edge off of such a serious, heavy issue in America's society, and he does it well. As I watched this video, I almost forgot that this was for a college class and instead I felt like I was viewing an interview with SNL characters (and SNL was mentioned). I think that without these two different approaches, Tyson's purpose would have been lost in the end; the science academics would have forgotten about the political aspect behind their science interests and the entertainment goers would have changed the channel to something more funny.