Why do some people consider the way the media cover candidates for public office bad for democracy? a. people tend to vote for the candidates who they find most appealing, rather than the ones whose beliefs are most like their own. b. the media are for-profit businesses, unable to be fair or objective in the interest of the public. c. candidates already in office receive more media attention than those who are trying to take their positions. d. people always vote for the person the media determine is most qualified, rather than the candidate who can bring about change.

I'd say the correct answer is B: The media are for-profit businesses, unable to be fair or objective in the interest of the public.

The way media covers candidates for public office is thought to be bad for democracy since means of communication tend to fail at being objective, so when they are asked to cover some candidate's campaign, they are more likely to exalt the qualities of the candidate they find most appealing regarding their interests, and to leave insufficient time for another candidates and their projects.

In addition, people tend to let themselves be influenced by media and media people's opinion, thus they fail at making a well-informed and thought decision.  

B

Explanation:

I just took the test and it was right.

they have different colored collars

the catholic church withhold people's access to the bible during the middle ages.

people could go to church and listen to the teachings, but it was absolutely forbidden to own and/or read the books of both the old and new testaments. it was also prohibited to translate the books (which where originally in biblical hebrew) to any other language.

this was done so the church could remain in control of what their teachings were and to enhance their importance and power, while also being able to judge people's actions through information that was unavailable for the general public.