I need an explanation for this Philosophy question to help me study.
I’m asking for a paper of just 5 pages, so each of your answers of each question should be about 1-and-2/3rds of a page long.
Q1—In WikiLeaks: News in the Networked Era, Charlie Beckett, with James Ball, offers a compelling overall account of WikiLeaks and its implications for the worlds of government and media. But do Beckett and Ball get things right? Should their perspective be accepted as a definitive view? What, if anything, do they get wrong?
Q3—Objectivity remains a sought-after goal to some journalists and a dubious one to others. As the Edward Snowden case broke, the most prominent writer involved in publishing Snowden’s secrets was the blogger/lawyer/journalist Glenn Greenwald, who recounts his experience in No Place to Hide. Should objectivity matter to Greenwald in regard to the Snowden case? If he’s not objective, does that weaken his take on Snowden and Snowden’s revelations?
Q4–Michael Schudson argues in Why Democracy Needs an Unlovable Press for the importance of a professional press and for representative, rather than direct, democracy. Yet we live in a new media world full of citizen journalists and technological tools that would seem to make direct democracy more possible than ever, even in a large society. In what ways is Schudson wrong about the need for a professional press and the superiority of representative democracy?