Food For The Soul Analysis

Food for the soul, or as writer for the New York Times Nicholas Kristof would argue, food without a soul. In the Opinions section, Kristof details his experiences with rural farming and provides a few facts about the counterpart to rural farming: industrial agriculture. This article’s main focus is to provide information about farming, with a bias towards rural farming, as Kristof comes from that background. His article accomplishes this goal with heartfelt stories, a knowledgeable friend, and facts about industrial farming. He is effective at reaching people of varied backgrounds and opinions. The author’s purpose is to present information on both ways of farming and his underlying bias towards rural farming. This article has three main parts to serve his …show more content…
This is part of the reason the article was written: to inform. But the hidden message in this article is that the reader should do something if possible. As a writer, Kristof cannot do much to impact big businesses. However, if the right person, such as naturalist with a lot of money, even glances at this article and learns something, then maybe a change could happen. This is why there is no real bias in this article. The person who could start a change may not like Kristof, his opinions, or just him as person. Staying as unbiased as possible gives Kristof the highest possible chance of having a change occur, which is his hidden goal. Nicholas Kristof’s article “Food for the Soul” tries to provide some information on the topic of rural vs industrial farming. Kristof explains his animal- and quality-oriented experience with rural farming and his speed- and quantity-oriented experience with industrial farming. With its varied stories and mostly unbiased stance, this article does get that information out in a place where people ignorant of this topic can get