For the past year as part of an effort to broaden our supporter base our Folk on the Air program has allocated less time to traditional American folk music and more time to Latino music and world music In recent months many long term supporters of our sta

The business manager of a listener-supported public radio station argues that the radio should discontinue its emphasis on Latino and world music in order to avoid adverse publicity. He supports his argument by citing complains of long-term listeners and a critical article of the local newspaper. The argument seems convincing when it is given cursory reading, but an in-depth analysis reveals several logical fallacies that have rendered the argument indefensible.

First, a major lacuna in the given argument is the unjustified assumption that the complaints by long-term listeners are representative for all (long-term) listeners. It is likely that only listeners who oppose the shift in program write letters to the radio station. People tend to remain silent if they are not angry about something. Hence, listeners who are neutral or in favour of the changes have no incentive to say their opinion. Therefore, it is questionable whether based on the complaints an adverse publicity can be inferred.

Second, another lacuna in the given argument is that the business manager assumes that the shift of program resulted in a loss of listener-supporters. Even if the complaints of long-term listeners are representative for the whole group the argument says nothing about changes in total supporters. It is likely, that long-term listeners still support the radio even after the change given the fact that the Folk on the Air program is only all small percentage of the whole program. Moreover, the program shift probably attracted new listeners and broadened the supporter base. Therefore, discontinuing the current emphasis on Latino and world music will result in a lot of complaints and a loss of supporters.

Finally, the business manager unfairly assumes that the critical editorial is a sign for bad publicity. Maybe the local newspaper was always critical about the radio station for other reasons and only searched for a trigger to write something critical. Probably other newspapers or internet blogs are in favour of the program shift. Furthermore, often changes lead to opposition at the beginning. After some time people who were initially opposed to those changes start to like them. Therefore, the publicity may become more favourable.

In sum, the inference drawn by the business manager is fallacious, at least without additional evidence to support it. The arguer needs to bolster the argument with information related to the premises. If, for example, the business manager provides evidence that the complaints are representative and data that show a decrease in radio supporters related to the program shift, his argument would be far more persuasive.