The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago.
Conclusion
Nowadays vs. ten years ago, the media devote more coverage to crime because the public has become more interested in reading and hearing about crime (not because there is more crime).
Evidence (after all)
The media crucially relies on the interests of their audiences when making decisions about how much coverage goes to which issues.
Evaluate
Whenever we do Main Conclusion and Role, we anticipate that we'll (probably) see the Main Conclusion earlier than the Support. The last claim on over 80% of Role questions is playing some Supporting role (either as a premise or as an intermediate conclusion).
The Support indicator after all (FABS = for, after all, because, since) instructs us that the final claim is supporting the claim before it.
The first fact in this paragraph has the classic asymmetric comparison feel of a Curious Fact: why does the media devote more coverage to crime nowadays?
That provides us with a vocabulary for describing this argument in words other than Premise / Conclusion. We can think of the first sentence as the puzzling background phenomenon. The second sentence rules out one possible explanation (it's not that the crime rate went up) before pivoting into her chosen explanation (it's that people increasingly lust for crime coverage).
Note: the word "because" is being used in the causal sense there, not the reasoning sense of providing a supporting idea.
Goal
They're asking us about the Main Conclusion, aka the author's preferred explanation for the curious fact in the first sentence.
This is the author's hypothesis. She supports the plausibility of her hypothesis in the last sentence.