During the recent campaign for mayor, a clear majority of city readers

AWA PRACTICE - OG, p. 835 8 Aug 17

The following appeared in a memorandum from the publisher to the staff of The Clarion, a large metropolitan newspaper:

“During the recent campaign for mayor, a clear majority of city readers who responded to our survey indicated a desire for more news about city government. To increase circulation, and thus our profits, we should therefore consistently devote a greater proportion of space in all editions of The Clarion to coverage of local news.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyse the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluation its conclusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------
On the surface the argument is defensible – a greater desire for a certain type of news would likely lead to the assumption that more of that news would lead to greater circulation. However, there are a number of flaws in the argument, and this essay will examine three: the quality of the poll; the inaccurate conclusion; and the failure to derive an appropriate and accurate solution. It will conclude with a recommendation for better analysis.

Firstly, the poll is highly limited in its scope, in particular its timeframe. It is extremely likely that during an election interest in local politics is going to be higher, and therefore it is dangerous to assume that this interest is going to persist forever (the article refers to “consistently” altering its content). It is also dependent on those who have responded, and it is likely that these individuals are particularly moved or motivated to do so; those people who did not respond may be a higher percentage of readership, and may not have responded due to their satisfaction with the current output of the paper – circulation levels and readership rates provide more accurate assessments, but take longer to ascertain. For these two reasons the poll is of insufficiently high quality to be able to accurately draw long-term conclusions.

Secondly, even if the poll was of higher quality (and it would be extremely difficult to measure when it was of sufficient quality), it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that more space in all editions of The Clarion should be devoted to local news. Assuming that there is a linkage between circulation and profits (which the memo does assume, and which is extremely likely) it does not necessarily lead that readers of all editions of The Clarion are interested in local news. For example, residents in a commuter area may be less interested in the news around where they live, and more interested in news around where they work. Hence the deduction that what is right for one edition is right for all editions is not necessarily correct.

Thirdly, even if the first two areas were sound, the piece does not articulate how much more space should be devoted to local news. This is dangerous for two reasons. Firstly, it does not identify what the upper limit of space should be; there may be a tipping point for local news, beyond which readers are actively turned off from reading the paper. Secondly, it fails to clarify what should be sacrificed to make space for the local news. If it is advertising space which is paid for by companies, this may eat into their profits, which would undermine another one of the piece’s assumptions. If it is another form of news, this may turn off more readers who are interested in that, and have an overall negative impact on circulation. In sum, the lack of clearly identified guidelines makes the direction woolly at best.

Better analysis, therefore, would be derived from the following actions: establish regular polls over a longer timeframe and during a number of different big events; utilise data from a number of different editions; identify what should be sacrificed, and by how much, in order to accord to the wishes of the readership without impacting profits; and remain flexible in what gets allocated. The piece’s deduction that it should “consistently devote a greater proportion of space in all editions” is too blanket a statement. It would be far better to allow the editorial team the flexibility to alter the quantity and type of news coverage according to the situation, the location, and the readership. While poll respondents may be a metric which can contribute to understanding these factors, it should not be the only one, and others, such as readership rates and circulation, which may take longer to gather but would be more accurate, must be taken into account as well.