Answer:
Nowadays, people can easily access endless news platforms thanks to technological advancement and the popularity of 4G networks. However, have we considered the possibility that a piece of news can have completely different versions? I think this has a lot to do with fake news, which has led to social unrest in many parts of the world.
Most importantly, society is usually split between two camps: pro- and anti-government. In such a situation, some reporters may try to cover up the truth for their own political gain, which makes people question the media industry. But people who are not trained to think logically can be easily misled by fake news.
They live in an “echo chamber”, a kind of social media environment in which opinions are likely to be approved of because they will only be read by people who hold similar views. Such people may become angry with those who think differently. This can cause division in the community, which is not a good thing.
In a time when we can spread and receive information quickly, media literacy is very important. But it is the duty of media organisations to crack down on fake news and focus on the “real news” for the sake of a peaceful society.
We should not believe everything people say. What comes out of their mouths don’t matter much as long as we think critically and act sensibly. Then we can steer ourselves in the right direction.
Angela Chan, Leung Shek Chee College
Explanation:
Work Cited From, "Yuhan Huang | 21:09pm, 27 Sep, 2020"
<u>In some </u><u>Native American</u><u> communities, people accused of breaking the law meet with community members, victims (if any), village elders, and agents of the justice system in a sentencing circle</u>. A sentencing circle involves discussion between offenders, victims, and members of the community. A person sitting in the circle has no special powers/privileges. The circle operates on the basis of consensus. Each member of the circle expresses his/her feelings about the act that was committed and raises questions/concerns. The accused can express regret about his/her actions and a desire to change the harmful behavior. This question is related to Criminology.
Answer:
The correct answer is devil's advocacy.
Explanation:
Devil's advocacy refers to a decision-making technique which used for the purpose of combating groupthink (making decisions as a group) One or more people from the group take up the role of devil's advocate and go on to pinpoint flaws and risks in the subject under consideration. As discussed in the question, it is used to defend unpopular or opposing alternatives for the sake of debate.
"Farmers" were the people among the choices given in the question that the McNary<span>-Haugen Bill help. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the third option or option "C". It was a controversial act of the 1920s that never became a law. I hope the answer has helped you.</span>
Hey is the one ☝️ was a great I wanna
