Intro:
Lots of newspaper companies shut down and lots of journalists lost their jobs in past couple years. While most people hope to save journalism, for some people, it seems like a chance for their own benefits. In this essay I will explore the rhetorical process in arguments from 4 different perspectives about how to save Journalism to try to discover different appeals from different figure.
The 4 speakers of the arguments are Steve Jobs from Apple, Hal Varian from Google, John Kerry from government, and John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney who are founder of Free Press. In the discussion of how to save Journalism, Steve Job argues that attracting its audience is the key. Hal Varian argues that increasing ad revenue will save them from crisis. John Kerry and John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney argues that in order to save journalism, government involvement is needed. These people’s arguments are important because they are well known figures which most of Americans know about.
Justification of my essay:
Talking about the Journalism crisis and its surrounding arguments are Journalism has been part of American society since our nation was born. Therefore, the crisis of Journalism could also mean crisis of our nation. We must therefore think about how to save them. Looking at the particular arguments from powerful figures is also important for us. Not only because their audience are people in the country, but also because of their influencial voice. Their famousality and high status makes what they say strong. It is common for politicians to be manipulative, but also what they say is more likely to be real since they are govenars. Therefore it is our responsibilities as American citizens to watch these people with power and see if they are trying to do good things to our society.
History: The discussion over issue of Journalism crisis developed over the past. At first it was just a level of newspaper, not journalism level. As digital age has came people are talking about weather newspaper or newspaper industries will disappear or not. Some people predict it will and some thought not. When the more internet and TV came in, and took most of newspaper industry’s ad revenue and readers, people started to concern about the necessary of newspaper. Due to the convenience of web contents, most of people thought the ends of the paper. At this time, the TIME published article called “DEAD OF PAPER” arguing unesesity of papers. Although some people remained the needs of paper, it was small. In fact, paper circulation declined about 50 % from early age. It was their own decision and action to enter digital surface as newspaper industries. In 1988 NYtimes started its news website called “NYTimes.com”, and others followed. “However, this did not reactivate newspaper but still they continued to decline. Then people began to concern the existence of journalism itself. It was the time when n NEW York times announced its possibilities of not able to manage their finance, revealed that the one of the biggest national newspaper company are in danger of buncrupcy. Then fear spread among people: What if all newspaper industries are unable to run business anymore? If all the newspaper companies were bumcrupt, there will be no journalism itself because there will be no place to practice journalism activities. Since this time, people’s discuion shit from “newspaper level” to “journalism level”, and from the question of “weather it will survive or not” to “how to save it”.
The arguements of from Steve Jobs and Hal VArian shows profit-interests of private buisnesses. Last month at a conference, Steve Jobs argued that the high-tch device like "iPad" will save newspaper. His arguments was constructed in more visual way then writing. One of the persuasive techniqus Job used is that he included demonstration. He showed how easy to use iPad, and how cool its design is. He argued indirectly that the high-tech device will save newspaper by showing the attracted audience of the conference. He is indirectly implying "high-tech device will attract audience, and as a result, it will attract audience for newspaper; therefore, it will save newspaper industry."
As Steve Job is said to be best presentator, he gave a great presentation at the conference. He used narrative rhetorical skill to establish shared belief and value within his audience. He supported his argument by his demonstration, which appealed to his audience visually. Although he was good at giving aspiring presentation, his rhetorical process failed in terms of ethos. Steve impressed his audience by giving visual presentation, however, his argument was lacked with ethos. He did not use any statistics or testimony in order to prove how high-tech device will save the newspaper industry. Also, Steve relied on an assumption that "people love high-technology and they will buy."There is no proof that all people will buy iPad just because most people are said to driven to new things. That said, the rhetorical analysis on Steve Jobs' argument revealed that Steve Jobs was not thinking about saving Journalism seriously. Rather, he was thinking about the profits for his buisness. His argument that iPad will save journalim can be deceiving. His main purpose of the argument was to make a profit out. Steve Jobs, a CEO of Apple Inc, therefore can be said to use a newspaper crisis as a chance of making his onw profit.
Same thing can be asaid to Google CEO Hal Varian. Hal argued that increasing of ads is the way to save journalism. His argument is, I would say, nothing rather than a radish which only seek his own profits. In his argument, he first refer to Steve Jobs’ claim, “Users will likely engage with the tablet during leisure hours, and you would imagine that’s very attractive to publishers. However, iPad is not something that save journalism,” and then he supports his claim by saying “because people will not read news weather it is online or ipad.” He added “Pure news is the unique produc that newspaper provide, but it is very hard to monetize”. When I read this line, I almost wondered he had been written about his mother on newspaper in the past. Because he had, I understand why he becomes such anti-newspaper. Basically the lines shows him saying nothing will change because nobody will read news. His groundless assumption of “news is meaningless” is too obvious in these lines. Then, he argues “the only way to save journalism is increasing ads revenue.” To support this arguments, he gave a statistic “currently online ads bring in only 5 % of newspaper ad revenue.” This reasoning is failed. His statistic of “5% of current revenue” does not directly lead to “therefore increasing the ads revenue”. It does not make sense at all because there is no warrants established between there support and claim. Instead, his argument reveals his profit interests rather than saving journalism. Just because ads revenue rate is low, it does not means the only way saving them is to increase the rate; there are many other options. Puls, if the revenue is so low, it could mean there is no possibilities to get revenue from ad anymore. Again his groundless assumptions of “no other option” and “ad revenue will increase no matter what” shows that he is thinking about the only way that benefiting him.
Steve Job from Apple Inc and Hal Varian from Google Inc, at its surface, are arguing over “HOW TO SAVE JOURNALIM” . However, it is reaved through the analysis, that their actual purposes are “HOW TO BENEFIT” to themselves. Pretending like doing for others but actually doing for their benefits is the skill that only world-level buisness men can do.
While Steve Jobs and Hal Varian's argument was for their own profit, John Kerry from Senate and John Nichols and Robert W Mcchesney from Free Press seems like they are talking on its account. John Kerry, a Senate of Masachusettu argued the importantce of governmmnet involvment in saving journalism at the hearings on May 2009. At the hearings, there are representatives of Google Inc., Dallas Morning News, Washington Post Company, etc. However, there are not the only audience he was apploaching, but also people in the Uited States. John Kerry succesfully established shared values in people in the United States by saying this is "our" country and "we have to work together for our nation". He included governmnet in it too. He also called audience's experiences in order to create the value that newspaper has been part of human life. He used quotes from historical and credential figures such as Joseph Pulitzer and Paul Starr in order to creat etho in his argument. The organization of his argument was logical. After he established sharef commonplace in his audience, he stated facts and statistics of situation which newspaper industries faces. Then draw into why relaxing media ownership rules is bad. It was his rhetorical tequnichs that he brougnt this issue in his argument. By bringing up opponents before he was opposed, he demolish the chances of his opponents. Then he predicted what wil happen in the future from what is happening right now. Considering the present, past, and future of newspaper industries, he concluded his argument saying: the new economic model is key to save journalism. He said " The new kind of press, this new media is going to require a new economic model, one that everyone is still trying to figure out". John Kerry is simply saying that in order to find this new economic model to save journalism, the governmnet involvment is important.
The arguments from John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney add more stronger support for John Kerry's argument. In their argument titiled "THE Death and LIFE of Great American NEwspaper", Nichols and Mcchesney argued the importance of government involvment for survaval of journalism. They supported their arguments by using facts, and statistics. Itwas persuasive because they constructed their argument in the fomula such: This is what happened in journalism in the past, and therefore, we have to do this."
In conclusion, the analysis on the Steve Jobs, Hal Varian, John Kerry and Nicols and Macchestny revealed the main porpose of each arguments. While Steve Jobs and Hal Varian's arguments were based on their own profit-interestes, John Kerry and Nicolas and Mcchesny's arguments seem more relevant in terms of saving journalism. In other words, private buisnesses like Apples and Googls tend to use opportunities for their benefits while government concerning the issue as national problem. Which opinion should be listened to is depends on readers'judgment, and rhetorcal analysis make us a judge correctly.
