Number 12- F
Number 13- D
14- ???
Answer:
Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. ... Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.
Explanation:
I hope I helped out!!
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
The struggle for clicks and views appears to have created a deadly disease of sensationalized headlines that are something but objective and often not even true (i.e., faux news). on every occasion you notice sensationalized headlines that scandalize or exaggerate what the content material is about, you're seeing an example of yellow journalism.
Yellow journalism normally refers to sensationalistic or biased testimonies that newspapers present as objective reality. set up overdue 19th-century newshounds coined the term to belittle the novel techniques of their rivals.
Yellow journalism changed into a fashion of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over information. at some point in its heyday in the past due 19th century, it turned into one of all many elements that helped push the USA and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, main to the acquisition of overseas territory by means of America.
Yellow journalism and the yellow presses are American phrases for journalism and associated newspapers that gift little or no legitimate, nicely-researched information even as instead the use of headlines for extended sales. techniques may additionally encompass exaggerations of information occasions, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.
Learn more about yellow journalism here brainly.com/question/861070
#SPJ9