Do you think that a journalist should be required to take photos also as a part of her job? Why or why not?

I really think that is depends on how credible the citizen journalists are. What I mean by that is that we see a lot of pictures and videos on the news and online that are from people who are not journalists and it can behard to tell if videos or pictures are real. So I would say that it depends on the credibility of the source as well as where the vidoe or picture came from. There are many pros and cons of adding photos and videos taken by regular citizens to the news cycle. Some pros are citizens capture raw footage of events, they are able to capture events first hand, and they are able to footage of an event that most journalists aren’t (i.e. the beginning of the event, sometimes the event itself depending on what is happening, etc.). Some cons are that it takes jobs away from people who are trained journalists, the footage captured by citizens may have a better (has more information) picture or video of the event than the footage captured by real

Explanation:

No, a journalists job is not to take the pictures, just to publish the article. If the journalist wanted to add photos, they should hire a photographer for their study. Photography and journaling is very different jobs and require different skills and abilities to create a well written/ well taken items.

answer: group ii. when the root is a full word except for a final e, the forms usually are spelled with -able.

explanation: the word will be deplorable. -able will be used with the word 'deplore-'. the group ii is when the root is a full word except for a final e, the forms usually are spelled with -able is used for the word deplore- because the word deplore- has 'e' at the end of it.

the second option.is correct