T.A.

I really have no idea what I'm going to write about for my media paper, so I'm just brainstorming right now. But I found this study about the tabloidization of the news that I thought was interesting.

1. The argument is that newspapers and television news stations don't just report the news anymore because they are losing readers and viewers. News is now a hybrid made up of some actual news, opinion, history, and pop.

2. The audience is people who at least care about the news a little bit.

3. There is a lot of logos in this argument, because it is full of numbers and different statistics about readership levels and circulation, etc. The author lays everything out in a very straightforward manner. He says that because those numbers were going down, newspapers and TV news stations had to do something to get money so they completely changed the format of what they do. I would say there is a lot of ethos in this argument, because a lot of credible and prominent people were interviewed for their opinions on the matter. Having credible sources helps to make you credible. Pathos is at a minimum. The argument is very straightforward, kind of like the author is saying, "Here are the facts. They tell you all you need to know. I'm not going to even try to convince you." It's an interesting strategy, but in a way I think it makes his argument a little less than sufficient. It's strong, but his indifferent attitude does make it a little weaker. In that regard, his argument is somewhat atypical. Most people try to incite some sort of emotion is their audience. He doesn't. The argument is definitely accurate and relevant, though. He is talking about a real problem and he has real facts to back up his side.

4. I think his argument could be effective for some of his audience, but not all of them. People who like just straight-up facts would enjoy it, but a lot of people might feel like he doesn't really care about them as audience.