Choose a particular news story as covered by a news “analyst” of your choice (certainly the inspiration for the assignment are folks like John Oliver, Sean Hannity, Stephen Colbert, or Tucker Carlson, but honestly any extended treatment of a story–or stories on the same topic and close to each other time wise-a few stories over a few weeks might be good enough–will do; maybe even consider someone you don’t like normally to analyze). It can even be a text treatment of a story (an opinion piece) The idea is to find a story with at least a five minute (but preferably more is better—it will give you more to analyze) broadcast from one of these hosts. Try to find one within the last six months or so, so the tactics/technology used aren’t dated by this point. Obviously, each host has his/her own style, but they all are trying to be effective in front of what would be seen as their typical audience.
So, after a brief introduction to the paper, which will just reintroduce the reader to the show and host in general and the story itself in a more generic way, you will essentially partition the paper into three general areas, each with a series of questions you should address within each section:
First, you will deal with the sense of “logic” and argument within the story (hopefully the coverage you watch will be kind of fun to watch as well, but try to make sure it strikes you as either effective or perhaps even in the opposite way). Note for me a few of the arguments made in “analyzing” the story, and try to analyze how good they are. You can (in fact, I’d recommend it) lay out the structure of the argument or claim itself (with backing evidence or premises) if you think this will make it clearer for me to understand.
Second, take a look at the story with the focus on credibility, both from outside the analysis and within it. Who (the host) has presented this coverage, and what kind of credibility do they have for the target audience to pay attention to the message? After you deal with this, then look within the coverage itself. How does the host lay out supporting evidence/sources and note the credibility of those sources to help make the host’s attempts to “analyze” (note that probably means active persuasion) the story even more effectively (not just if the story is necessarily funny, though that might be a goal of the host) in the mind of the audience? What elements of credibility do both the host and the sources used have?
Finally, examine if the show “gets it right” according to the studies in the book. Are the arguments, use of sources and of credibility presented in the show clip actually supposed to be persuasive according to material we’ve read in the class?
With ANY of these areas, feel free to bring in material that you think, either inside the text, or from other sources (oh my!), might shed some new light on some of your points, as long as you don’t get away from the essence of these questions.
