SWA #10

      The first editorial “Columbia Council Should Support Mission, Homeless” discusses the issue of how the Oliver Gospel Mission’s need for relocation or expansion has been denied by City Council twice. The article also discusses how the city of Columbia not only needs to help the homeless but help them overcome it. The author writes that the only way this will occur is if City Council does their job in persuading the public that this is a necessary and beneficial step towards improving Columbia. This editorial seems to focus on the logos appeal to the issue. It states the facts that have occurred and has a slight pathos appeal when it discusses what needs to be changed and why.
      The second editorial “Columbia Must Care for the Homeless as Well as Bantus”, discusses how the same issue as the first editorial only they also include the matter of housing the Bantus refugees. They discuss how hard it has been for the mission to gain approval for housing the homeless at a new and larger location. They say that the reason is because City Council will not approve the expansion if there is any opposition from the city. The author focuses on the homeless but also relates the issue to the Bantus and how it might be just as hard to house them. By the end of the article he concludes that there is much more support for the Bantus than the homeless but they are equally important. This editorial seems to focus more on the pathos appeal stirring emotions that will hopefully persuade the reader to do something about the homeless problem in Columbia.
      The third editorial “One-Stop Proposal for Area’s homeless Looks Promising” is the most different approach of the three. This editorial addresses that the mission has been rejected from the downtown areas so the local business owners have proposed that they take the homeless shelter to shop road at an old warehouse. This author addresses the problem but also acknowledges that people are taking actions towards fixing this problem. This editorial seems to have a more positive outlook than the other two editorials. This editorial also seems to focus more on the logos appeal because it states what has happened with the expansion and the new ideas that could help fix this problem.
      All of these editorials were obviously for the same intended audience since they were all featured in “The State” newspaper. The also speak of the same issue and address the same problems with the issue. The first editorial discusses more of what happened with the homeless issue in Columbia, the second editorial seems to put the blame on City Council not standing up and doing their job, and the third editorial addresses the issue and proposes a different location than the other two. These differences and similarities serve to inform and persuade the audience in different ways. By using the different strategies, they can appeal to broader audiences on the same issue and hopefully come to some sort of conclusion on this issue.