Which is not a political implication of press restraint?1. The govt. would be able to limit information needed by the public. 2. The press would be able to report more fully on various govt. wrong doings.3. Incumbent candidates would be able to manipulate the electorate.4. The “Pentagon Papers” might not have been revealed.
To me, they ALL appear to be at least SOME form of a political implication of press restraint. #3 might be the selection I'd make if one of them DOESN'T apply, but even it does to some extent.
The answer is three: 3. Incumbent candidates would be able to manipulate the electorate. 1. The govt. would be able to limit information needed by the public. The government is currently allowed to keep a large amount of information secret from the public, particularly in relation to economic development and spending on economic development. This impacts the public's ability to instruct their representatives on how they want them to vote on certain issues. 2. The press would be able to report more fully on various govt. wrong doings. The less secrecy about government, the better the reporting will be. I am a former reporter and one of the things I ran up against is governmental secrecy. 4. The “Pentagon Papers” might not have been revealed. The Pentagon Papers were top secret papers regarding the Vietnam War. President Richard Nixon sued to have these documents supressed.
Really? ummmm, #2? Incidentally, one question mark is more than sufficient.
