The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“If the paper from every morning edition of the nation’s largest newspaper were collected and rendered into paper pulp that the newspaper could reuse, about 5 million trees would be saved each year. This kind of recycling is unnecessary, however, since the newspaper maintains its own forests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of paper.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze 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 evaluate its conclusion.
I have been studying the newspaper industry for some time. It is clear to me that the newspaper industry faces a number of problems. It is estimated that 25% of newspaper revenues come from classified advertising, yet newspaper readership has declined substantially over the past decade. As a result, many newspapers have closed or scaled back their printing operations. This is a major threat to the country’s economy and people’s livelihoods. To counter this trend, some newspapers have implemented new strategies such as making the paper available online to subscribers only. However, this is expensive and only benefits those with a subscription to an online newspaper, as millions of people still rely on newspapers delivered to their homes by truck, or who simply do not have the means to pay for online access. One solution that many newspapers are considering is paper recycling. If newspapers collected their paper pulp, it would not only alleviate the strain on their forests, but allow people to recycle the paper
Even though newspaper readership has declined since the turn of the century, the industry has not seen any major decrease in revenue. Instead, most newspapers have seen a steady increase, with revenue being the main contributor to their profitability. In fact, in 2012, the Newspaper Association of America reported that newspaper revenue had increased by nearly 11% from 2011, and that advertising revenue had grown by 10.4%. This is a testament to the shrewd approach taken by newspaper publishers in diversifying their revenue streams. Advertising revenue continues to make up the largest share of revenue, but other forms of revenue have also been on the rise, such as subscription and e-commerce. In fact, in 2012, newspapers saw an increase of 2.3% in subscription revenue from the previous year. This rise in subscription revenue was due in part to the ubiquitous availability of broadband internet. As the internet has become more accessible and affordable to the average consumer, more and more consumers are choosing to receive their news online. This subscription revenue, however, is much less lucrative than advertising revenue. This is largely due to the fact that while most consumers are willing to pay a small fee to access the internet, few are willing to pay for a newspaper subscription
In response to the declining number of newspaper subscribers, many newspapers have moved to focusing their efforts on attracting new readers, rather than attempting to retain existing subscribers. Online subscriptions, which can be accessed at any time, are the preferred option of many. However, the subscription model is not without its own problems. Currently, the newspaper industry is heavily skewed toward heavy Republican readership. Consequently, Republican newspapers are heavily subsidized by conservative donors and wealthy individuals, which has led to many newspapers receiving a partisan slant. This partisan slant is readily apparent in newspapers like the Arizona Republic, which has been accused of being an overtly partisan publication, and the New York Times, which is subject to accusations of liberal bias. The subscription model also limits the number of advertisements that can be placed on the page, which limits revenue. Consequently, when newspapers implement subscription models, they must ensure that their publication is appealing to a broad audience, or they will find it difficult to stay afloat. Recycling their paper pulp, on the other hand, would not restrict the number of advertisements, since newspapers would not need their paper pulp to be quality enough to be reused. Instead, they could simply sell their pulp as is, and it would enable them to continue operating
This is not to say that the recycling of paper pulp is without its own potential drawbacks. Many newspapers, especially those based in more rural areas, rely on paper pulp from forests, which means that they are indirectly contributing to the destruction of the forests. If newspaper companies were to cease using wood, they would also, like their online competitors, have to find alternative sources of paper pulp, and there is little doubt that they would encounter increased costs in doing so. However, there are alternatives to using paper pulp from forests, such as recycled paper, which reduces the need for new wood. Furthermore, although recycling paper saves trees, it also uses a lot of water in its production, and the paper industry consumes a substantial amount of water, with much of it used to clean recycled paper. Consequently, if newspapers were to recycle their paper pulp, they would use up more water than they save, which is obviously less than ideal. Nevertheless, the recycling of paper pulp is necessary if the newspaper industry is to survive, and there is no doubt that it would alleviate some of the strain on loggers and papermakers. In conclusion, although recycling paper pulp is not necessary, it is a necessary step in combating the issues facing the newspaper industry.