College Athletes Get Paid Analysis

As society continues to be engulfed in the social media realm, media bias drowns users in deception and persuasion to manipulate or reassure their personal opinions within controversially discussed topics. Moreso, perpetuation of misinformation is a common analysis and interpretation error among media users. Usually, misinformation easily occurs in the midst of opposing sides to an argument or debate. More specifically, major dispute has actually revolved around the controversy on whether college athletes deserve to be paid or left wageless as they play on national television, compete at high-skilled expectations, and train as vigorously as professional athletes. Harrison Marcus wrote Source A, “Economic Analysis: NCAA Athletes Should Not Be

Meanwhile, Source B by Brian Rosenberg entitled, “How the NCAA Cheats Student Athletes,” directly blames the NCAA for exploiting their athletes towards profit for the organization as the students continue to attract paying viewers through broadcasted games and endorsements. Source C, “College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons,” by Malcolm Lemmons, confronts racial issues regarding those who stand against paying college athletes and gives advantages and obstacles if the NCAA were to really hand them fair salaries. While Source A adamantly utilizes economic theory with reliable rhetoric and background analyzation to address the true consequences of paying college athletes, Source B uses insulting language and fallacious reasoning to persuade its audience how college athletes are unfairly scammed with no earned wages, and Source C draws upon racial bias and false dilemma to agree with the same argument that college athletes deserve rightful pay. Consequently, a reader must be able to determine the deceptive uses of media bias in a source as a means to revoke accustomed perpetuation of

The author centers around the system of how wages would actually be worth less than that of scholarship benefits and that the increase in wage demand for athletes would put universities under financial pressure. He mentions those who support paying college athletes for their hard-earned work and those who do not when he states that “On the surface it seems ideal and fair to pay college athletes for the hours of labor they put in each week; however, it’s important to analyze the trickle down of effects such a drastic change would cause.” (Marcus) By addressing both sides of the argument, Marcus lets his readers know that he is aware of athletes deserving a salary, but remains in his stance against the topic. He refers to sports fans in particular who disregard and ignore the actual complications that would be caused if the NCAA were to pay college athletes. His use of economical analysis on the possibilities of paying college athletes further deems the article valid when he quotes, “While from an ethical standpoint it may not be appropriate for the NCAA and universities to make millions of dollars off free labor, there are too many economic implications and consequences that make it difficult to pay college athletes.” (Marcus) His personal opinion is unseen as he provides the audience with statistical examination following