Roosevelt is arguing that journalists must only attack misconduct when they have valid proof. They must not dig just for the sake of digging; it is offensive to good Americans. Which statement most effectively argues against this claim?
a) Even sensational journalism is valuable because it makes money.
b) Journalistic freedom is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
c) Roosevelt himself is a dishonest man, so his arguments are invalid.
d) The government should be more concerned with uncovering corruption.
And you think it's ... ?
I think its D I'm not sure
Read carefully and re-think:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
Exactly.
thank you so much!!
The most effective statement that argues against Roosevelt's claim that journalists must only attack misconduct when they have valid proof is option D: The government should be more concerned with uncovering corruption.
This statement challenges Roosevelt's position by emphasizing the role of journalists in holding those in power accountable. It suggests that journalists should have the freedom to investigate and expose potential misconduct or corruption, even if they don't have concrete proof at the beginning. By advocating for a focus on uncovering corruption, this statement implies that journalists have an important role to play in ensuring transparency and accountability in the government and society.