Rhetorical Analysis: Feed the Children Article

Rhetorical Analysis: Feed the Children Article

       The world is currently experiencing a socioeconomic crisis, affecting mostly children and the elderly population. The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has shaken the world, thereby facilitating various governments to find ways to help their citizens, especially the needy communities. Doug Ducey, the governor of Arizona State, came up with strategies to assist people in going through these tough times. Kathleen B. Kunz wrote the article titled “Feed the children” to reveal how school districts within Arizona State partnering with the governor’s office, have gone the extra mile to help fight against COVID-19 pandemic. Precisely, the program is non-discriminative because it reaches all children regardless of their diversity. Further, Kathleen reveals that people should be brother’s keepers, especially to children who belong to the entire society. More so, some families rely on feeding programs, which has fostered state officials to support the move jointly. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the article to help other states to decide whether to follow the footsteps or not

The article author revealed that the governor’s strategy observe ethical issues in various ways. Firstly, the governor, under the office powers, imposed the plan, which follows the set standards to ensure no discrimination or unlawful practices during the feeding program. The governor’s office serves all people equally regardless of their diversity and is also mandated to supports the citizens in times of need. COVID-19 does not know any boundary, which is in line with the governor’s office massage when directing all children to be supported regardless of their diversity. Secondly, as reported by Kathleen (2020), the publication of the article was done through a credible and legalized website and, more importantly, engaged a professional news reporter to ensure the article contains only the actual and relevant information.

On that note, politicians are known for blinding people with fake news to gain political miles, which the government tried to avoid. Therefore, by observing such ethical issues, the audience and other state leaders can rely on the article, join hands to support such strategy as they help the globe to combat this pandemic. Nonetheless, as the article reveals evidence of ethos, it also reflects evidence of pathos.

Concurrently, Kathleen reflects the help feeling and practices by the officials to vulnerable communities. Although politicians are known to focus more on accumulating wealth at citizens’ expense and share whenever they need favours such as reelection, from the pathos perspective, the government officials have realized the need to offer support to the ordinary citizens. It is affecting people from all diversity, and every person has the potential to become a victim. Furthermore, it has claimed the lives of many breadwinners leaving such families under financial crises. Besides, several governments have closed business, bearing in mind that most low-income earners live from hand to mouth. Such families have been greatly affected by the pandemic, which has facilitated the move by government officials to offer support, especially to children who must continue with schools after the pandemic (Kathleen, 2020). The pathos appeal from the author is that children belong to the entire society, and they are vulnerable to all sorts of problems. Thus they require support from the whole community. Kathleen, through her articles, creates a sympathetic kind of feeling that it is the time to join hands and be brother’s keepers, recognizing that before the pandemic, there were families that could hardly feed their children and rely on school feeding programs. Thus, with the current situation, they need extra support, which should come from civil servants and other well-wishers.

Lastly, as the article portrays pathos evidence, it also contains evidence of logos.

Many vulnerable families relied on feeding programs before the pandemic, which logically has worsened the situation. The article reveals such logos to limelight through the use of rhetorical and historical examples. For example, past cases show that “many families in Tucson are incapable of feeding their children daily” (Kathleen, 2020). Thus, well-up people can connect the current situation from such historical cases to extend helping hands to the needy. Besides, as far as state residents are protecting themselves from contaminating the virus and also trying to feed their families, Arizona and the entire government has to take care of the citizens. Precisely, many people have, at one point, experienced or witnessed such difficulties, and they should be at the forefront to help others.

In conclusion, Kathleen expressed an ethical sense by the government through the fight of discrimination, where all children receive meals regardless of diversity, and also following the rule of law in publication. Concurrently, the fact that the virus knows no boundary, the disadvantaged population is adversely affected, and the state officials move to help the children is a clear demonstration of pathos that other states and well-wishers can embrace. Lastly, the historical fact that even before the COVID-19, some families relied on school feeding programs is logical enough for people to relate with the current situation to offer the necessary support. Notably, Coronavirus has a severe impact on vulnerable communities, which has facilitated the government of Arizona states to formulate support strategies to support vulnerable populations during these hard times.