Please Explain

@alige, Happy to help. You're right—the wording on this question is a bit tricky and quite confusing. Let's take a look at how we can solve this. It sounds like you misinterpreted what's going on in the stimulus, which is why the question didn't make sense to you. The journalist is not intentionally writing the quote out of context; rather, the journalist is failing to openly challenge the unsupported/false claims that they are indirectly or directly quoting from newsmakers. Let's take a real-world example and apply it to this problem. Let's say some politicians are going around saying that the United States doesn't border Mexico. A journalist quotes this in her article. However, now she is much less likely to question the truth of that statement in her article, whereas 5 years ago, she would've called B.S. on the statement. Does this make sense? We're looking to find the one answer does not help resolve this paradox. Why isn't she speaking out? Answer A would help explain the paradox because if there are some readers who will cancel a subscription simply because a view they take for granted has been disputed by the publication and also believe (like the politician does) that the U.S. doesn't border Mexico, then it makes sense how journalists would be less willing to call out false statements. The journalists wouldn't want to alienate readers. This makes sense. It's incorrect because it helps resolve the paradox. Answer B would also help explain the paradox. If the journalists lack knowledge about the false claims, then it would make sense that they're likely to call them out since they don't know that the claims are unsupported or outrageous. Answer C helps to explain the paradox because it persons supporting controversial views more and more frequently choose to speak only to reporters who seem sympathetic to their views, then it would make sense that journalists are becoming less likely to openly challenge the veracity of such claims. This answer is incorrect because it helps explain the paradox. Answer D would not help to explain the paradox. If it's true that a basic principle of journalism holds that debate over controversial issues draws the attention of the public, then it does not make sense that the journalists are not openly challenging the claims. The paradox remains, so this is our correct answer. Answer E explains the paradox because if journalists who challenge the veracity of claims are often criticized for failing their professional obligation to be objective, then it makes sense that they would be less likely to openly challenge unsupported or false claims. Because it explains the paradox, it's an incorrect answer. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!