The 2009 documentary River of Waste, directed by Don McCorkell, attempted to encourage the people to make sure to have a cleaner river and not to litter it with trash. They are trying to encourage you to keep a clean river. It would be better to have a clean river and not one littered with garbage. One where people throw away the trash and recycle any type of cans or plastic. Not throwing it in the river because that would kill a lot of fish and make the river look nasty. The film maker did an excellent job with emotions, logical appeal, but they did slack a little with their experts. The strongest use of appeal in the documentary would be emotion. At the beginning of the documentary it shows how they start with emotion. There is a lot of …show more content…
Towards the middle of the documentary they give you very good facts such as why it's bad to litter in the river as well as why the chicken pollution is bad for you. Many families where affected by the pollution. " A number of families have sued poultry companies to hold them liable for the illnesses suffered by their children"(45:32). Littering in the river is bad for the environment and people, so is the chicken pollution that is spread around the land close to the school and homes. The chicken pollution that is spread around the land possesses disease concerns. The dust inside a surrounding home had arsenic levels that were higher than safe. This could lead to serious illnesses or death. As one father said in the video, "I took her to the doctor... they took a blood sample and by the time I got back... they called me and told me... it was a life and death situation... They told us she had cancer."(46:01). This is how dangerous the chicken pollution and littering in the river was that a kid got cancer. If people wouldn’t have littered in the river and if they didn’t treat the land around the house with chicken poop, then maybe the child would have never gotten cancer and would've lived a healthy