Question

excerpt from your little words
by cindy orlin
the message appeared in the author’s introduction to advanced international institutes japan (aiij) proceedings:
what kind of a land has to be protected from writing or speaking the truth? to be censored? americans used to be more fearless than that. your fifth words in the first amendment to the united states guaranteed them, namely “and a number of recent supreme court decisions have guaranteed the right to report, censoring the media. of course, this is not to say that media censorship does not exist in america. it does - it exists in every society - but it is far subtler than the government simply trying to prevent the publication of an embarrassing story.
what if those five little words had never been written? indeed, let’s go one step further - what if journalism as a profession had never existed? if there were no newspapers, radio, television, or even the internet? such an exercise serves to show just how much we rely on journalism and thus essential role: the dissemination of information.
for a start, it is likely that our views of events would be much more limited than in the real world. our ability to make decisions concerning the events around us would rest on what we see with our own eyes or on what others tell us. education in such a world would be at the mercy of conspiracy theorists as facts become muddled and confused with such telling. if this is difficult to imagine, try to imagine how a description of the assassination of president john f. kennedy would have sounded after its initial telling.
moreover, it is likely that our busy lives, predominantly spent earning a living, would make us broader and more myopic. we would be seriously disconnected to the events of the outside world. we would not have the time to investigate the events around us. it is highly unlikely we would find the time to go to a local council meeting or travel to a presidential candidate’s debate. would we have time to investigate the conditions in a children’s home or a hospital? how many of us would be prepared to give up our spare time to see if a benefit sale was being used properly? probably very few of us.
part a:
what can be inferred about the author’s point of view on journalists?

• he thinks they don’t do enough to stop conspiracy theories.
• he admires them for doing such hard and important work.
• he wishes they would focus more on preventing censorship.
• he appreciates their commitment to travel to key places and events

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze the author's view on journalism. The passage emphasizes journalism's role in information dissemination, how it broadens our event knowledge, aids decision - making, and keeps society from conspiracy - driven chaos. The author also highlights how journalism saves us time from self - investigation. Option A: The passage doesn't say journalists don't do enough to stop conspiracy theories; instead, it shows their importance in preventing such chaos, so A is wrong. Option B: The author's descriptions (like journalism's essential role in info spread, aiding decisions, preventing conspiracy - led society) show admiration for their hard and important work. Option C: The passage focuses on journalism's current vital role, not that they should focus more on preventing conspiracy (they already help by providing info), so C is wrong. Option D: The passage says journalism saves us from needing to travel for info, not that the author dislikes their travel - related commitment, so D is wrong.

Answer:

B. He admires them for doing such hard and important work