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.

Major Analysis Papaer

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.