This captures the flaw. The author treats TV and newspapers as though consumers must choose one or the other, when there's no reason to think watching TV news prevents someone from also reading a newspaper. If people could do both, they could get direct involvement from TV and depth from newspapers. The argument's conclusion depends on treating these two compatible sources as mutually exclusive.

It doesn't matter why people watch TV or read newspapers. The argument is about what those sources are capable of providing. Even if someone watches the news purely for entertainment, they can still get a sense of direct involvement from it. The author's reasoning is about what each source delivers, not about consumers' motivations for using them.

Not defining a term isn't a flaw. Arguments don't need to define every term they use. "Depth of coverage" has a clear enough meaning in context, and nothing in the argument hinges on ambiguity in that phrase. The argument is flawed for a completely different reason: it ignores the possibility of combining sources.

Whether direct involvement with tragic events has downsides is a separate issue entirely. The argument is about whether people can fully understand current events, not about whether full understanding or direct involvement is good to have.

The argument doesn't confuse capacity with actual performance. The author isn't saying, for example, "TV can provide direct involvement, therefore it does provide it." The premises straightforwardly state what each source provides and lacks. The flaw is about how those sources relate to each other (the author assumes you can't combine them), not about whether they actually deliver what the argument says they deliver.