MAP final draft: The Future of Journalism Argumnents

Introduction:
(1) Research question or thesis
Lots of newspaper companies shut down and lots of journalists lost their jobs in past couple years. Because of this situation, the traditional journalism now faces the biggest problems they have ever had. Over its existence and survival, many scholars and medians have discussed the different ways of saving the traditional journalism. In this essay I will explore the rhetorical process in each argument to try to find whether the speakers used the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from audience or not.
(2) A description of the artifacts and its contexts, Justification of the analysis
The 4 arguments including- Steve Jobs from CEO of Apple Inc, Hal Varian from Google Inc, and John Kerry from government - are best for the method of criticism used in this situation. Steve Job argues that attracting its audience is the way to save traditional journalism. Hal Varian argues that increasing ad revenue will save them from crisis. John Kerry argued that in order to save traditional journalism, government involvement is necessary.
Some people might ask: why do need to analyze these arguments? First or foremost, does the future of traditional Journalism matter? Well the answer is “yes”. Believe or not, the future of traditional journalism is important issue for all of Americans. Journalism has been part of American life and supported our society more than 100 years. The reason why we can access to reliable news is because of traditional journalism. If the traditional journalism somehow disappears, that means end of the nation. There will be no nation exists without communication, news, and information (unless you are in North Korea or some other exceptional country). These 4 arguments are worthwhile for analyzing because they are being discussed out there today. This entire analysis contributes to better understanding of the best way of saving traditional journalism as well as saving our own nation.
(3) Description of a method of criticism (?)
For this analysis, the neo-Aristotelian criticism is the best theory to use. The significance of neo-Aristotelian analysis is that it compares the means of persuasion by understanding the inventions. The purpose of this critical theory is to find out whether or not the speakers use the best rhetorical techniques to evoke intended response from its audience. Its purpose is not, obviously, to discover if the speaker succeeded in the persuading his audience or not. With the neo-Aristotelian analysis, the situation will be outlined first. Then audiences will be specified as well as their decision is defined. Finally, choice and arrangement of persuasive factors including- logical, psychological, and character logical- will be revealed and evaluated against the guideline of the rhetoric.
(4) History:
Before we begin, we should look at the background of the issue because it will help us having better understanding of what we are about to do. Why people began talking about the future of traditional Journalism? What lies on the background of saving them? The origin of failing traditional journalism is not simple. Its causes are very complicated, and it is mixture of two or more factors. For example, the first and foremost discussion about the future of journalism started almost 10 years ago. When the Internet came, some media people worried about existence of newspaper. Newspaper industries have been surviving until now by transforming themselves with digital contents. However, they lost its audiences as well as advertisement revenue. As the recession gets worse from couple years ago, many newspaper industries has began to shut down and employees lost their jobs. Due to this complicated background, the solution for saving the traditional Journalism has not met yet.

Analysis: Applying the canons
(1) Invention
Invention is important rhetorical element to look during analysis. During his presentation of its high-tech device called iPad, Steve Jobs used mixture of internal proofs- logos and pathos. Here is how he invented his arguments:
During the demo, he showed New York Times article on the iPad screen. Then simply he just began to play around with device; opening up an article, enrage images, flip the pages etc. There were no words. But audience at the conference was all attracted to Jobs’ performance.
(From Apple’s Website)
The visual images have more emotional effects than words, and Jobs knew that. He showed how iPad can attract audience by demonstrating attracted audience at the conference. He continued "therefore, high-tech device such as iPad will revolutionize and save the traditional journalism industries" by using logical appeal. Ethos however, did not work out well in Jobs argument. His character of being "CEO's Apple Inc" played negatively because it made audience think he is just trying to sell his products for his company's benefits. Thus, he lost his credibility and honesty because of his character.

Meanwhile, Hal Varian used external proof-documents from Newspaper Association of America- along with logics. He used data from NAA document. For example in his statement, Varian stated data such as "Typically, 53% of newspaper spending goes to traditional printing for distribution, and 35 % of them goes to core function of newsgathering". Other external proof are seen in the quote "only 39% internet users surveyed by Pew said they spend time online looking for news" and "currently online ads bring in only 5 % of newspaper ad revenue” stated in his argument. With these external proof and data from NAA documents, Varian criticized Steve Jobs’ argument. Varian concluded the argument; even though industries could attract audience by high-tech device, its users will not see the news with the device. Varian’s argument for how to save the traditional newspaper industries is to get ads revenue by increasing qualities of online ads. Therefore, he continued, Google Inc can help newspaper industries and improve their qualities of ads. Thus, Varian used external proof and gained credibility in his argument; he also used inductive reasoning: series of specific data is used to draw a conclusion in which the solution is to increase the qualities of online ads.

Like Varian, John Kerry also used many rhetorical skills of invention at the government hearing. One of the significant parts is the opening remark of his statement:
“A brass plaque on a wall at Columbia University’s School of Journalism bears the words of legendary newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer: ‘Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together.’ If we take seriously this notion that the press is the forth states, or the fourth branch of government, it is time we examine the future of journalism in the digital Information Age and what it means to our Republic and to our democracy”
(From website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)

Here, Kerry’s rhetorical choice is concerned with which person’s quotes to use. He quoted from the most credible person in journalism field, Joseph Pulitzer, and this choice gives credibility, as well as attention gather. Another significant rhetoric he used is that he talked about alternative solution for saving traditional journalism: cross media ownership, and local web-only news style. He then pointed out some elements of why these alternative solutions do not work. Kerry used inductive reasoning: He first lay out bunch of examples- both internal and external proof, which illustrates the changing of economical society and the emergence of new form of media. Then he draws to general conclusion. Here are some of the examples he used:
“In the last eight years, we have gone from zero bloggers to more than 70 million…just look at the way Janis Krums, a New York City ferry passenger, broke the news that flight 1549 out of La Guardia had landed in the Huston River- he took a picture himself and tweeted the feed to an audience of thousands”
(From website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
Thus, Kerry used a specific events happened in the past as an evidence for showing how the media is changing. Then he continues:
“Google topped $21.7 billion in advertising revenue in 2008, but the news it provides is an aggregate from free news sources/ Craigslist, which provides free classified ads on-line, gets about one billion visits a month, costing newspapers billions of dollars a year”
(Quoted from website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
These examples are external proof such as documents, which allow him to illustrate the condition of changing society due to the emergence of new media. Then he draws to the conclusion saying the new business model of newspaper industries are needed in this new society; but many solutions are failed; and therefore, government involvement is called for its solution. This inductive reasoning with mixture of different kinds of evidence he used worked well in his statement.

Conclusion and implication
In exploring the rhetorical process in each arguments, my attempts to find whether or not the speakers used the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from audience was revealed by analyzing with the method of Neo-Aristotelian criticism. As a result of this analysis, it showed that the speakers use the bunch of different rhetoric techniques in order to propose the solution for saving traditional journalism. Steve Jobs from Apple Inc. argued that iPad will save the traditional Journalism; Hal Varian from Google Inc. argued that increasing the qualities of online ads will save its future; John Kerry, a government official argued that government involvement will save them from the crisis. Thus, by re-constructing its contexts and applying the canons, the analysis shows the special connection between speakers and their arguments. That connection is the fact that what each speaker argues for the traditional journalism is based on their interests, belief, and profits. This significant finding from the analysis allows us to enter into the persuasion of my proposal in which how to save traditional Journalism: In order to save traditional Journalism, we need to hold a discussion forum, and individuals are needed to actively participate in the conversation.