Dr. Adhanom’s First Speech on COVID-19: An Analysis of Rhetoric
The following is a rhetorical analysis of a sample of communication concerning COVID-19. The main aim is to use the various tools of rhetorical analysis to attempt to make an assessment of the effectiveness of this piece of communication as well as the power of persuasion it holds. The media of communication chosen is oration. The particular example sourced is the speech given by Dr. Tedros Adhanom, the Director-General of the WHO, at the outset of what is now known to be the COVID-19 pandemic — on the 9th of March 2020. The tools used include ethos, pathos, and logos as well as the method of conducting a SOAPS analysis. Towards the end of the evaluation, there is a brief discussion regarding the structure and tools of persuasion used by a few other world leaders while addressing the COVID-19 situation as well as the limitations of this evaluation.
The chosen piece of media coverage is a speech made by Dr. Tedros Adhanom, the Director-General of the WHO during his opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-196 on the 9th of March 2020. The chosen form of communication to conduct an analysis of rhetoric is oration. This is primarily because it has a wider scope for emoting and influencing rhetoric using easily discernible intonation. Since our very evolution into homo sapiens, oration has been the most effective means of communication. It also provides a wider scope for information dissemination due to the fact that it caters to the illiterate sections of the population as well. The reasons behind choosing this particular speech are as follows; It was the first piece of formal and credible communication concerning COVID-19 at an international level as the WHO is the apex body for affairs pertinent to international public health. Dr. Tedros’ speech proved to be the milestone marking the onset of a disease soon to be a catalyst for worldwide caution. The objective is to use the tools of rhetorical analysis to provide a general assessment of the potential for persuasion in the piece of communication.
The chosen speech was delivered by Dr Tedros at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, at the first-ever official press conference dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak. He is the first Director-General of the WHO, who is a non-medical doctor. He is a man rich in experience in the field of community health and immunology of infectious diseases. His words come across as largely factual and logical in nature with an abundance of statistics and data involved, it is perhaps an attempt at leaving no room for ambiguity or doubt regarding the veracity of his statements and claims in such a sensitive situation.
He begins by providing an update and short glimpse into the status of the erstwhile Ebola outbreak in Central Africa. He goes on to elucidate the exact measures taken to keep Ebola at bay, quite literally. In a rather clever use of rhetoric, he speaks of the success with an erstwhile deadly epidemic before addressing the looming COVID-19 anarchy. This could be for two reasons, as follows — One, to assure people that there will most certainly not be a situation of a dual pandemic and Two, it solidifies people’s faith in the capabilities of the WHO and overall credibility of the organisation, firmly establishing its ethos. It must also be kept in mind that at the time, COVID-19 was viewed as an epidemic and not a pandemic. Dr Tedros further explains the seriousness of the situation calling awareness to the fact that there had been 100,000 reported cases of it across 100 countries, in a short span of time — and in doing so, foreshadows a possibly ruthless pandemic in the event that we act callously and not cautiously. In an attempt to instil hope and a sense of control he claims that “we are not at the mercy of ‘this’ virus”, seemingly alluding to the particularly aggressive and sudden nature of the Ebola outbreak of 2014.
The main content of his speech deals with the exact plan of action nations around the world must follow, explaining with specific examples of Italy, Singapore and China. The reference to China’s relative success with the containment of the virus is an important element of the rhetoric which will be discussed towards the end in the context of his concluding remarks. Throughout the speech, Dr Tedros’ diction is fairly formal yet not heavy on technical terms, the reason for this could be that the specific nature of the content caters largely to policymakers and bureaucrats of the world. He stresses on the point that this situation is not about containment or mitigation, which would be a false dichotomy, but both. He explains the importance of understanding the collective action necessary to control the spread of the virus among the dependent population — the elderly as well as young children. He expresses that any ignorance of this fact is a grave indication of moral decay in society, thus appealing to the people’s sense of morality and possible guilt over their self-interest.
In his recommended plan of action, he specifically stresses on an ‘all-of-government and all-of-society’ approach. This alludes to his strong socialist beliefs, in fact, it seems like a certain jab at capitalist nations since he gained massive disapproval from funding nations like the USA upon his decision to appoint the openly socialist President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, a WHO goodwill ambassador for 2017–2019. He also mentions that all specific details regarding the same will be available on the WHO website, this is again a conscious choice since making a speech far too information-heavy can come across as pedantic and easily lose the attention of a listener or even a reader for that matter.
He expresses his gratitude and feeling of encouragement provided by the signs of global solidarity. This was of course, prior to President Trump’s decision to pull funding from the WHO in an attempt to please the masses with the widespread sentiment of hate against China and supposed cover-up by the WHO of China’s complacency. Dr Tedros repeatedly lauds China’s efforts to contain the virus but gives no indication of disapproval of their ignorance on the subject for almost two months, which later proved to be a crucial period. Perhaps his claims were such, to avoid any further instigation of public sentiment against all things Chinese. His concluding remarks prove to be a beacon of hope as he exclaims that the rule of the game is to never give up. His last few lines were poetic and witty in equal measure.
According to Dr Adhanom (2020),
“Let hope be the antidote to fear. Let solidarity be the antidote to blame. Let our shared humanity be the antidote to our shared threat.”
The pivotal role of the tool of vocabulary is exemplified in the usage of the word ‘antidote’ in his closing statement. The question on everyone’s mind would be the production of a vaccine, which in any practical measure, would not have been possible at the time. Thus, by using the term antidote in the context of social strength and resolve, Dr Tedros effectively nullifies a possible point of direct panic, disfavour or criticism. He also employs the literary device known as a ‘euphemism’ in his appeal to let solidarity be the antidote to ‘blame’. By ‘blame’, he is actually referring to the serious issue of irrational disfavour and jingoist policies towards China post the update that patient xero could possibly be from Wuhan, China.
The overall inference is that Dr Tedros’ speech at the WHO press conference, was a highly effective use of rhetoric, with a gentle balance of emotional and logical appeal. It employs a clever use of language to stress the important aspects of the content and build hope in the general public as well as shine light on a path forward for public authorities. It followed a broad theme of being prepared for the worst, whilst hoping for the best. The only apparent criticism would be that it is indeed quite information-heavy, while that is a legitimate concern, perhaps it is also important to look at the designation the WHO holds in the world. It is the apex body for all matters relating to international public health. Thus, perhaps the world looks to an organisation such as theirs, for tangible and informational support rather than emotional or moral support. It is also important to consider a few limitations faced in this analysis of rhetoric. They are as follows — One, conducting such an evaluation of a speech, 6 months post its actual delivery and publication causes certain hindrances and information biases since it is unavoidable that we now know more about the virus than we would have had we analysed it afresh on the 9th of March 2020. Two, that as in any discipline, once one delves into the technicalities, it is difficult to assess a piece of communication with the common man’s eyes bereft of the biases of technical genius as opposed to communicative efficiency to the general public.
