This passage is from a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision.,end italics,%0D%0A%0D%0A %0D%0A%0D%0Afrom ,begin bold,New York Times Company versus United States,end bold,%0D%0A%0D%0A %0D%0A%0D%0AIn the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people . . . In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

How does the author support the argument in the passage that the "newspapers should be commended" for their reporting of the Vietnam war?

by suggesting that the newspapers of the time were fulfilling the expectations of U.S. citizens

by revealing how much newspapers have changed since the drafting of the First Amendment

by stating the purpose of a free press and explaining how the newspapers fulfilled that purpose

by explaining how keeping people informed is a shared duty of the government and newspapers

The author supports the argument in the passage that the "newspapers should be commended" for their reporting of the Vietnam war by stating the purpose of a free press and explaining how the newspapers fulfilled that purpose.