The following appeared in the editorial section of a local paper:
“Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town’s local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for its advertisement spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well.”
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.
The argument presented assumes that KMTV, a local television station, should focus its programming on farming issues in order to attract more advertising dollars. The argument does not present any alternative explanations as to why KMTV’s advertising revenues might be dwindling. Furthermore, it does not provide any evidence to support its claim that KOOP, a neighboring town’s local channel, experienced an increase in advertising applications. As a result, I cannot help but think that this argument is fallacious
While it is true that KMTV’s advertising revenues decreased last year, I am skeptical that the reason is due to its programming. KMTV carries local programming such as city council meetings, traffic reports, and local news. This is not the type of programming that attracts the attention of potential advertisers. KOOP, on the other hand, is the town’s local channel. The station broadcasts farming-related programming and events, such as livestock auctions, new farm equipment, and crop sales. I think that the reason KMTV’s advertising revenues decreased is demographic: people, especially younger people, are switching to cable and satellite providers that carry KOOP instead of KMTV. These viewers are more likely to watch KOOP, which broadcasts programming relevant to their interests, than KMTV, which broadcasts programming that appeals to an older demographic. KMTV’s programming, therefore, is not to blame
KOOP’s programming strategy is sound. It broadcasts programming that targets the town’s farming community. This is a smart move, because it increases the chances that potential advertisers, who watch KOOP, will purchase advertising spots. By showing these potential advertisers that KOOP is broadcasting content of interest to them, KOOP increases the likelihood that they will do business, which will in turn make KMTV’s programming more appealing
While KMTV’s programming is not to blame, I think that KMTV should change its programming in order to attract more advertising dollars. KMTV’s programming has to appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. But KMTV does not do this. KMTV’s programming consists mostly of news, talk shows, and game shows. These shows attract an older demographic and are not the types of shows that attract younger viewers. I suggest KMTV change its programming to attract more viewers, especially the young people that advertisers are seeking. A television station that appeals to younger viewers will have broader appeal, and it will attract more advertising revenues.