Select all that apply. which of the following is not an example of a "pro" of getting news about an election from a mainstream news source? corporate censorship prevents news about the candidate's criminal driving record from getting out. the election is covered on a minute-by-minute basis at the click of a mouse. a reporter may be fired if she lies about a candidate. a reporter has responsibility for checking dates, statistics, and facts.

Corporate censorship prevents news about the candidate's criminal driving record from getting out.

A "pro" is something that is positive. In this case, the positive should be for the public not the candidate. Option A is the best choice because it keeps information from the general public because of corporate censorship. While a criminal driving record may or may not sway the public's vote, the idea that the public could be kept in the dark about a candidate's past because of corporate power is definitely a negative.

The other options could be seen as "pros" People following the election may enjoy minute-by-minute coverage. A reporter being fired for lying about a candidate would lead to only the truth being reported. Also a reporter having the ethical responsibility of checking facts would be another positive. It would allow the public to trust the news a little bit more.

this doesnt make any sense imao

verdadero

explanation: