1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
melamori03 [73]
3 years ago
7

Do you think there is enough evidence to support the idea that Harappans were peaceful and enjoyed social equality? Why or why n

ot? What do you think is the most plausible explanation for the decline of this civilization?
Social Studies
1 answer:
Akimi4 [234]3 years ago
6 0
Yes there is enough evidence. google said so
You might be interested in
Why did the framers of the Constitution create three separate branches of government? ​
Ivahew [28]

Answer:

Explanation:so they could have a government bruh

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Paul vallas brought in camelot, a private education firm, to help with management of the booker t. washington school. camelot in
victus00 [196]

These are the choices:

A. Transcendental leadership

B. Media responsiveness

C. Intellectual consideration

D. Transactional leadership

E. Ethical leadership

The type of leadership Camelot provides in the school is transactional leadership. This type of leadership contains the essential managerial activities of establishing goals and monitoring the development toward their achievement, such as these school board deputy visits.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is the first step in a bill becoming a law?
Whitepunk [10]
Both the House and Senate must approve the conference report. Step 9: Final Action. After both the House and Senate have approved a bill in identical form, it is sent to the president. If the president approves of the legislation, he signs it and it becomes law.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
PLS WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST Write about how news papers allow us to preserve culture/ record important cultural events and add a pi
emmasim [6.3K]

Answer:

Since 1896, The New York Times has printed the phrase “All the News That’s Fit to Print” as its masthead motto. The phrase itself seems innocent enough, and it has been published for such a long time now that many probably skim over it without giving it a second thought. Yet, the phrase represents an interesting phenomenon in the newspaper industry: control. Papers have long been criticized for the way stories are presented, yet newspapers continue to print—and readers continue to buy them.

In 1997, The New York Times publicly claimed that it was “an independent newspaper, entirely fearless, free of ulterior influence and unselfishly devoted to the public welfare (Herman, 1998).” Despite this public proclamation of objectivity, the paper’s publishers have been criticized for choosing which articles to print based on personal financial gain. In reaction to that statement, scholar Edward S. Herman wrote that the issue is that The New York Times “defin[es] public welfare in a manner acceptable to their elite audience and advertisers (Herman, 1998).” The New York Times has continually been accused of determining what stories are told. For example, during the 1993 debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), The New York Times clearly supported the agreement. In doing so, the newspaper exercised editorial control over its publication and the information that went out to readers.

However, The New York Times is not the only newspaper to face accusations of controlling which stories are told. In his review of Read All About It: The Corporate Takeover of America’s Newspapers, Steve Hoenisch, editor of Criticism.com, offers these harsh words about what drives the stories printed in today’s newspapers:

I’ve always thought of daily newspapers as the guardians of our—meaning the public’s—right to know. The guardians of truth, justice, and public welfare and all that. But who am I fooling? America’s daily newspapers don’t belong to us. Nor, for that matter, do they even seek to serve us any longer. They have more important concerns now: appeasing advertisers and enriching stockholders (Hoenisch).

More and more, as readership declines, newspapers must answer to advertisers and shareholders as they choose which stories to report on.

However, editorial control does not end there. Journalists determine not only what stories are told but also how those stories are presented. This issue is perhaps even more delicate than that of selection. Most newspaper readers still expect news to be reported objectively and demand that journalists present their stories in this manner. However, careful public scrutiny can burden journalists, while accusations of controlling information affect their affiliated newspapers. However, this scrutiny takes on importance as the public turns to journalists and newspapers to learn about the world.

Journalists are also expected to hold themselves to high standards of truth and originality. Fabrication and plagiarism are prohibited. If a journalist is caught using these tactics, then his or her career is likely to end for betraying the public’s trust and for damaging the publication’s reputation. For example, The New York Times reporter Jayson Blair lost his job in 2003 when his plagiary and fabrication were discovered, and The New Republic journalist Stephen Glass was fired in 1998 for inventing stories, quotes, and sources.

Despite the critiques of the newspaper industry and its control over information, the majority of newspapers and journalists take their roles seriously. Editors work with journalists to verify sources and to double-check facts so readers are provided accurate information. In this way, the control that journalists and newspapers exert serves to benefit their readers, who can then be assured that articles printed are correct.

The New York Times Revisits Old Stories

Despite the criticism of The New York Times, the famous newspaper has been known to revisit their old stories to provide a new, more balanced view. One such example occurred in 2004 when, in response to criticism on their handling of the Iraq War, The New York Times offered a statement of apology. The apology read:

We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged—or failed to emerge (New York Times, 2004).

Although the apology was risky—it essentially admitted guilt in controlling a controversial story—The New York Times demonstrated a commitment to ethical journalism.

4 0
3 years ago
Why did Texans declare independence from Mexico?
lapo4ka [179]

Answer:

During the Texas Revolution, a convention of American Texans meets at Washington-on-the-Brazos and declares the independence of Texas from Mexico. The delegates chose David Burnet as provisional president and confirmed Sam Houston as the commander in chief of all Texan forces. The Texans also adopted a constitution that protected the free practice of slavery, which had been prohibited by Mexican law. Meanwhile, in San Antonio, Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s siege of the Alamo continued, and the fort’s 185 or so American defenders waited for the final Mexican assault.

In 1820, Moses Austin, a U.S. citizen, asked the Spanish government in Mexico for permission to settle in sparsely populated Texas. Land was granted, but Austin died soon thereafter, so his son, Stephen F. Austin, took over the project. In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, and Austin negotiated a contract with the new Mexican government that allowed him to lead some 300 families to the Brazos River. Under the terms of the agreement, the settlers were to be Catholics, but Austin mainly brought Protestants from the southern United States. Other U.S. settlers arrived in succeeding years, and the Americans soon outnumbered the resident Mexicans. In 1826, a conflict between Mexican and American settlers led to the Fredonian Rebellion, and in 1830 the Mexican government took measures to stop the influx of Americans. In 1833, Austin, who sought statehood for Texas in the Mexican federation, was imprisoned after calling on settlers to declare it without the consent of the Mexican congress. He was released in 1835.

Explanation:

pick out your answer

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • While joseph does not overemphasize the issues of male and female differences, he is keenly aware of them and may address them a
    6·1 answer
  • What pact signed by Germany was part of a European policy of all of appeasement
    10·1 answer
  • My mind is made up! If they do not offer me theft insurance, I will not buy the smartphone.Which of the following is this an exa
    7·1 answer
  • Fact-based management includes four key ideas. Which of the following is among the key ideas associated with fact-based manageme
    6·1 answer
  • What are five ways standing committees may cause the "life or death'' of a bill
    9·1 answer
  • Jackson’s parents pay for him to take private violin lessons and send him to language lessons after school. In the summer, he at
    11·1 answer
  • Who was allowed to vote After the revolution
    14·2 answers
  • Giving brainliest!!!!!!!
    9·2 answers
  • How are citizens and nations complementary to each other ? Please explain briefly .
    8·1 answer
  • Economic Anthropology says that:
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!