Comprehension

Scholarship on political newspapers and their editors is dominated by the view that as the United States grew, the increasing influence of the press led, ultimately, to the neutral report ing from which we benefit today. Pasley considers this view oversimplified, because neutrality was not a goal of early national newspaper editing, even when editors disingenuously stated that they aimed to tell all sides of a story. Rather, the intensely partisan ideologies represented in newspapers of the early republic led to a clear demarcation between traditional and repub lican values. The editors responsible for the papers’ content—especially those with republican agendas—began to see themselves as central figures in the development of political conscious ness in the United States. 

Question: 1

The passage suggests that Pasley would agree with which of the following statements about the political role of newspapers? (Select all that apply.)

Show Hint

For questions asking about a specific scholar's view within a passage, isolate all the claims attributed to that person. Be careful not to generalize beyond the scope of the text (e.g., from "early newspapers" to "newspapers today").
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • Newspapers today are in many cases much less neutral in their political reporting than is commonly held by scholars.
  • Newspapers in the early United States normally declared quite openly their refusal to tell all sides of most political stories.
  • The editorial policies of some early United States newspapers became a counterweight to proponents of traditional values.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks us to identify statements that align with Pasley's views as presented in the passage. We need to carefully analyze Pasley's argument and evaluate each option against it.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Pasley's main points are:

The traditional view of a linear progression to neutral reporting is "oversimplified."
Early newspapers were not neutral; they were "intensely partisan."
Editors sometimes "disingenuously stated" they were telling all sides, meaning they were not open about their bias.
The partisan ideologies led to a "clear demarcation between traditional and republican values."
Editors, especially republican ones, saw themselves as central to developing political consciousness.
Analyzing the Options:
(A) Newspapers today are in many cases much less neutral in their political reporting than is commonly held by scholars.
The passage only discusses Pasley's views on "early national newspaper editing." It provides no information about Pasley's opinion on newspapers "today." Therefore, this cannot be inferred.
(B) Newspapers in the early United States normally declared quite openly their refusal to tell all sides of most political stories.
This is contradicted by the passage. Pasley argues that editors "disingenuously stated that they aimed to tell all sides of a story." "Disingenuously" means insincerely. This implies they pretended to be fair rather than openly declaring their bias.
(C) The editorial policies of some early United States newspapers became a counterweight to proponents of traditional values.
This is strongly supported by the text. The passage states that "intensely partisan ideologies... led to a clear demarcation between traditional and republican values." It also notes that editors with "republican agendas" were especially important. This implies that these republican newspapers were actively promoting a set of values that were distinct from and opposed to "traditional" values, thus acting as a counterweight.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Only statement (C) is supported by Pasley's argument as presented in the passage.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

The word "disingenuously" appears in the second sentence of the passage. That sentence reads, "Pasley considers this view oversimplified, because neutrality was not a goal of early national newspaper editing, even when editors disingenuously stated that they aimed to tell all sides of a story." In the context in which it appears, "disingenuously" most nearly means:

Show Hint

When trying to define a word in context, look for contradictions or contrasts in the sentence. The word in question often serves to bridge the logical gap. Here, the gap is between the editors' real goal (partisanship) and their stated goal (neutrality). The bridge is insincerity.
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • insincerely
  • guilelessly
  • obliquely
  • resolutely
  • pertinaciously
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a vocabulary-in-context question. We need to determine the meaning of "disingenuously" based on the logic of the sentence.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Pasley's argument is that "neutrality was not a goal" for early editors. The sentence then presents a piece of conflicting evidence: these same editors "stated that they aimed to tell all sides of a story." The word "disingenuously" must resolve this conflict. If the editors' true goal was not neutrality, but they claimed it was, then their claim must not have been genuine or honest. They were pretending.
Analyzing the Options:
(A) insincerely: This means not expressing genuine feelings; not sincere. This perfectly captures the idea that the editors were saying something they did not truly mean or intend to do.
(B) guilelessly: This means innocently and without deception. It is the direct opposite of the required meaning.
(C) obliquely: This means indirectly or not in a direct way. While their statements might have been indirect, "insincerely" better captures the intentional deception implied by Pasley's argument.
(D) resolutely: This means with firm determination. It describes the manner of an action, not its truthfulness.
(E) pertinaciously: This means holding firmly to an opinion or course of action; stubbornly. It also does not relate to sincerity.
Step 3: Final Answer:
"Insincerely" is the best fit, as it explains the contradiction between the editors' stated aims (telling all sides) and their actual partisan goals.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions