In his article “Journalism Does Not Need to Be Saved, Newspapers Do”, author Kowalcyzk argues that the

newspaper industry’s rapid decline is due to the increasing prices and poor editorial writing of newspapers.
He effectively constructs his argument by utilizing personal experiences, apt analogies and factual evidence.

Kowalcyzk starts his article off by comparing the newspaper industry to the food industry. In doing so, he
establishes the significance of journalism and the audience begins to understand that the fundamental need
for information will never regress. This analogy provides an explanation of the first half of Kowalcyzk’s
argument: that journalism does not need to be saved and asserts that the gravity of the problem does not lie
on journalism itself, but instead something else. At the end of his argument, he uses a second analogy by
contrasting the United States’ newspaper industry to the political magazines in Poland during the Cold War.
As the Cold War is an event largely associated with propaganda and idealism, the audience feels impressed
when Kowalcyzk reveals the vibrancy and honesty of most newspapers at the time, despite extreme political
pressure and control. The apparent success of the magazines at that time allow the reader to visualize what
the American newspaper industry should be working towards in order to survive.

Throughout the article, Kowalcyzk uses ethos to establish a sense of authorization and credibility. Very early
on, he introduces his extensive background in business, and states that he’s “closely following the local
Chicago Tribune”, which shows that he puts in effort and time to understand the current situation of the
newspaper industry and allows the audience to believe his later claims and be more easily persuaded. This is
additionally concreted when Kowakcyzk clearly states that he is a Chicago Tribune subscriber before he goes
on to analyze prices and numbers, because it shows firsthand experience and further shows the audience that
he has a (close) affiliation to journalism and is up to date with all the financial values involved.

Afterwards, Kowalcyzk acknowledges and then logically dismisses another popular argument on why people
think newspapers are losing money. By doing so, he’s demonstrating that he’s done comprehensive research
and is largely unbiased, willing to investigate other potential ways to explain the decline of journalism;
Kowalcyzk is also strengthening his argument by easily shutting this different explanation down.