The correct answer is D) Russia must stop fighting in World War l to end the death and starvation the war has brought.
The other options of the question were A) The czarist system is a Russian tradition that should be reformed but not eliminated. B) Russia should do whatever is necessary to make its government resemble Great Britain's. C) There is never any justification for protesters to use violence to achieve their political aims
A supporter of the Bolsheviks would most likely agree with the following statement: "Russia must stop fighting in World War l to end the death and starvation the war has brought."
In Russia, in the 1920s, the Bolsheviks were the political party that supported the ideas of Karl Marx and were convinced that the proletarian or the people should free themselves from the oppression of the wealthy people. Their political rivals were the Mensheviks. And yes, the Bolsheviks would definitely oppose the participation of Russia in World War 1 for all the damage, pain, and poverty that it caused to Russian people.
To declare war (and peace),
To appoint and regulate officers of the land and naval forces,
To build a navy,
To set the size of the naval and land forces (to be fulfilled by the States),
To establish rules and courts for the regulation of privateering,
To send ambassadors,
To entering into treaties and alliances (that didn’t affect States to regulate foreign commerce),
To settle, as a last resort, disputes and differences between two or more States concerning boundary and jurisdictional disputes,
To settle controversies concerning private land holders’ rights when the land is disputed by two or more States,
To fix the standards of weights and measures,
To regulate the trade and affairs with Native Americans (without violating State sovereignty),
To establish and regulate post offices,
To set the budget for the United States (to be fulfilled by the States)
To borrow money, and
To appoint a “caretaker” committee during Congressional recesses.
Concerns about the effects of media on consumers and the existence and extent of media bias go back to the 1920s. Reporter and commentator Walter Lippmann noted that citizens have limited personal experience with government and the world and posited that the media, through their stories, place ideas in citizens’ minds. These ideas become part of the citizens’ frame of reference and affect their decisions. Lippmann’s statements led to the hypodermic theory, which argues that information is “shot” into the receiver’s mind and readily accepted.[1]
Yet studies in the 1930s and 1940s found that information was transmitted in two steps, with one person reading the news and then sharing the information with friends. People listened to their friends, but not to those with whom they disagreed. The newspaper’s effect was thus diminished through conversation. This discovery led to the minimal effects theory, which argues the media have little effect on citizens and voters.[2]
By the 1970s, a new idea, the cultivation theory, hypothesized that media develop a person’s view of the world by presenting a perceived reality.[3] What we see on a regular basis is our reality. Media can then set norms for readers and viewers by choosing what is covered or discussed.
In the end, the consensus among observers is that media have some effect, even if the effect is subtle. This raises the question of how the media, even general newscasts, can affect citizens. One of the ways is through framing: the creation of a narrative, or context, for a news story. The news often uses frames to place a story in a context so the reader understands its importance or relevance. Yet, at the same time, framing affects the way the reader or viewer processes the story.
Episodic framing occurs when a story focuses on isolated details or specifics rather than looking broadly at a whole issue. Thematic framing takes a broad look at an issue and skips numbers or details. It looks at how the issue has changed over a long period of time and what has led to it. For example, a large, urban city is dealing with the problem of an increasing homeless population, and the city has suggested ways to improve the situation. If journalists focus on the immediate statistics, report the current percentage of homeless people, interview a few, and look at the city’s current investment in a homeless shelter, the coverage is episodic. If they look at homelessness as a problem increasing everywhere, examine the reasons people become homeless, and discuss the trends in cities’ attempts to solve the problem, the coverage is thematic. Episodic frames may create more sympathy, while a thematic frame may leave the reader or viewer emotionally disconnected and less sympathetic.
You were correct the answer is <em>United states </em>
hope this helps :)
Answer:
Explanation:
He refused to enforce the property rights of the cherokee! Hope it helps chief!
