Argument Quality in Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARGUMENT QUALITY IN PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING REPORTING _______________________________________ A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _____________________________________________________ by DAVID HERRERA Dr. Charles Davis, Thesis Supervisor DECEMBER 2011 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled ARGUMENT QUALITY IN PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING REPORTING presented by David Herrera, a candidate for the degree of master of arts, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Charles Davis Professor Tim Vos Professor Sandy Davidson Professor Peter Markie Professor Stephanie Craft To my family, my friends, and, most of all, to Jenny. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have been fortunate enough to spend the past year pursuing a passion. I owe my good fortune to many people, but most of all to Charles Davis, Tim Vos, Sandy Davidson, Peter Markie, and Stephanie Craft. For their encouragement, their criticism, and their willingness to let me have a little fun, I offer my deepest gratitude. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vii ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 Goals .............................................................................................................................. 1 Rationale ....................................................................................................................... 2 Organization ................................................................................................................. 4 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................... 6 Theoretical framework ................................................................................................ 6 Journalism’s theory of democracy ...................................................................... 6 Argumentation theory and Stephen Toulmin .................................................... 14 Informal logic and critical thinking ................................................................... 24 Putting it together .............................................................................................. 29 Applying argumentation and informal logic to journalism ............................... 30 Literature review ....................................................................................................... 33 Argumentation ................................................................................................... 33 Argument (0) and epistemology ........................................................................ 34 Fallacies ............................................................................................................. 37 Arguments from authority ................................................................................. 38 iii Assumptions and bias ........................................................................................ 41 Language and ambiguity ................................................................................... 43 Evidence ............................................................................................................ 45 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 48 Validity ........................................................................................................................ 51 The stories ................................................................................................................... 53 4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 57 Commonalities among the arguments ...................................................................... 58 Insufficient evidence ......................................................................................... 58 Problematic descriptive assumptions ................................................................ 61 Irrelevant Authority ........................................................................................... 65 Stronger arguments ............................................................................................ 71 Individual story analyses ........................................................................................... 72 ‘336 voters opened Bell’s wallet’ (LAT, July 23) ............................................. 72 ‘Bell’s codes a cash cow’ (LAT, December 16) ............................................... 77 ‘Weak insurers put millions of Floridians at risk’ (H-T, February 28) .................. 82 ‘How insurers make millions on the side’ (H-T, March 14) ............................. 88 Review ............................................................................................................... 95 5. DISCUSSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH ...................................................... 97 Is it really this way? ................................................................................................. 100 Why is it this way? What can be done? ................................................................. 106 Lives well lived ......................................................................................................... 110 iv APPENDIX STORY ANALYSES ............................................................................................. 111 Los Angeles Times ................................................................................................... 111 ‘Is a city manager worth $800,000?’ (July 15) ............................................... 111 ‘Bell’s money flowed uphill’ (July 27) ........................................................... 117 ‘Bell property tax burden second highest in county’ (July 30) ....................... 123 ‘Big benefits boosted Bell official’s take’ (August 8) .................................... 129 'Bell told to reduce property taxes' (August 14) .............................................. 133 ‘Rizzo’s horse had come in’ (August 22) ........................................................ 135 ‘Rizzo loaned Bell’s money to firms’ (September 1) ...................................... 140 ‘Bell assessed illegal sewer fees’ (September 3) ............................................. 145 ‘Bell impounded cars to boost coffers, police say’ (September 6) ................. 147 ‘More illegal taxes by Bell found’ (September 17) ......................................... 152 ‘Audit finds Rizzo got Bell funds’ (September 21) ........................................ 154 ‘Bell leaders hauled off in cuffs’ (September 22) ........................................... 158 ‘Business owners face big fees in Bell’ (November 2) ................................... 164 ‘How Bell hit bottom’ (December 28) ............................................................ 167 Sarasota Herald-Tribune ........................................................................................ 173 ‘How regulators put Florida homeowners at risk’ (April 18) ......................... 173 ‘Regulators take gamble on discount insurance’ (April 19) ............................ 177 ‘Sending billions overseas’ (October 24) ........................................................ 180 ‘How Bermuda rigs rates’ (October 25) .......................................................... 186 ‘Creating an $82 billion threat’ (November 14) .............................................. 189 ’Hurricane models: garbage in, gospel out (November 15) ............................ 194 ‘How State Farm cashed in on a crisis’ (December 5) .................................... 201 v REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 204 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Toulmin model for July 23 LAT story .......................................................................... 75 2. Toulmin model for December 16 LAT story ................................................................ 81 3. Toulmin model for February 28 H-T story ................................................................... 84 4. Toulmin model for March 14 H-T story ....................................................................... 94 vii ARGUMENT QUALITY IN PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING REPORTING David Herrera Dr. Charles Davis, Thesis Supervisor ABSTRACT This thesis uses techniques and theory from argumentation, informal logic, and critical thinking to assess the quality of arguments presented by journalists in Pulitzer Prize-winning stories. Journalists strive to inform citizens about the way their world is, was, and will be. These claims about the world are descriptive arguments, which can be accepted or rejected based on the quality of their reasons and evidence. Argumentation, informal logic, and critical thinking provide tools for determining whether the reasons and evidence given in an argument support