The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the compl

The recommendation is trying to persuade the station to change their programs to their former routines. Based on some evidence such as increasing complaints from audience and decreasing investment contracts. At the first glance, those seem convincing, however, more cautious consideration of evidence, data, and feedback from audience should be added by the author.

First, increasing complaints from viewers are received by the television station. However, the author fails to mention who and how many are those complaints and what are the things that bother them. Because, there are maybe just a minimal part of the whole audience who complaint, and they maybe unpleasant of the new anchor. Besides, although complaints are increasing, it may also mean that more audience start to concern the programs and they provide their own suggestions to the station about what they want to watch and care on TV. Unless the author provide more evidence about more detail information of the audience and their complaints, whether the new programs are not good can be valued.

Second, due to the canceling advertising contracts, the author thinks the problem must from the new programs. However, the author neglects the problem may come from those companies themselves. Some of the local businesses may suffer financial problems then they can not capable of spending extra money on advertising the TV station anymore. If things like this, the new program can not be blamed for losing advertising contracts. In addition, another possibility may come from other programs aired on the TV. Some of the details may offend those companies and they decide not to cooperate with the station. Unless the author rules out all those potential reasons, the new program can not be unfairly criticized.

Finally, the author deems that by restore the former programs can revive their TV station. But there is no evidence that can prove the author's assumption. Without the exact statistics of the former and present performance of the TV station, there is no way to compare which of them is more welcomed. Then there is no way to evaluate the true reflections of the two programs. And the author fails to consider other options besides restoring the former program, such as improving the quality of the contents of program and refreshing the style of the anchor are both significant factors to grasp the audience's attentions. And also the author can set up a well-rounded and objective survey of their audience to see which kind of program they prefer the most and their recommendation of the present program.

To sum up, without more evidence like audience's exact feedbacks and the condition of the companies, the author's recommendation can not be convincing and feasible although it is out of truly concern of the future development of the TV station.