Corporate censorship prevents news about the candidate's criminal driving record from getting out.
A "pro" is something that is positive. In this case, the positive should be for the public not the candidate. Option A is the best choice because it keeps information from the general public because of corporate censorship. While a criminal driving record may or may not sway the public's vote, the idea that the public could be kept in the dark about a candidate's past because of corporate power is definitely a negative.
The other options could be seen as "pros" People following the election may enjoy minute-by-minute coverage. A reporter being fired for lying about a candidate would lead to only the truth being reported. Also a reporter having the ethical responsibility of checking facts would be another positive. It would allow the public to trust the news a little bit more.
A. Corporate censorship prevents news about the candidate's criminal driving record from getting out.
The term "censorship", is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.
The term "prevents" means to keep from happening, especially by taking precautionary action.
It is so because corporate censorship is a censorship by corporations. It is when a spokesperson, employer, or business associate sanctions a speaker's speech by threat of monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace.
To learn more about censorship here
https://brainly.com/question/10437777
#SPJ2
