The heads of four of the U. S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebopk, and Amazon—appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy—mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.

One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.

In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies—merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.

Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.

So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are! complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.

In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U. S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.

Which of the following best represents the author’s view?

The heads of four of the U. S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebopk, and Amazon—appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy—mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.

One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.

In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies—merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.

Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.

So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are! complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.

In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U. S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.

According to Paragraph 3, suppliers are a bigger concern because______.

The heads of four of the U. S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebopk, and Amazon—appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy—mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.

One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.

In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies—merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.

Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.

So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are! complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.

In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U. S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.

It can be learned from Paragraph 4 that buyouts would enable platforms to______.

The heads of four of the U. S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebopk, and Amazon—appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy—mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.

One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.

In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies—merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.

Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.

So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are! complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.

In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U. S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.

The case for antitrust action against Big Tech has to do with______.

The heads of four of the U. S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebopk, and Amazon—appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy—mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.

One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.

In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies—merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.

Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.

So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are! complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.

In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U. S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.

Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

The University of California’s decision to stop using SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions is a milestone for opponents of standardized testing. Given the UC system’s size and prestige, the move may pressure other elite schools to go test-blind as well.In recent years, hundreds of institutions have dropped requirements that applicants submit their SAT and ACT scores. The coronavirus outbreak has prompted elite colleges, including Harvard, to waive test scores for students applying for admission in 2021.

It’s indisputable that student performance on both the ACT and SAT is highly correlated with family incomes. As well as attending better-resourced schools, affluent students are more likely to pay for test-preparation classes, take the tests multiple times in pursuit of higher scores, and receive special "accommodations" for extra time to finish exams. Colleges should take those advantages into account when reviewing students’ scores, but discarding test results altogether is a mistake.

For one, there’s no evidence that dropping test scores helps poor students. One study of 32 liberal-arts colleges that adopted test-optional admissions found no increase in the enrollment of low-income or minority students. Another found that black and Latino enrollment rose at 14 out of 23 test-optional schools—but only 11 out of 23 enrolled more students eligible for federal Pell Grants, which go to poor students regardless of race, and one-third saw those numbers decline. How come? One reason is that applications have gone up at test-optional schools—thus making those schools more selective, which can discourage qualified, low-income students from applying.

Also, dropping the SAT requirement makes it harder for colleges to compare applicants against a common standard. That heightens the importance of grades, extracurricular activities and how many Advanced Placement classes students take in high school—all of which, again, tilt the process more heavily in favor of richer candidates.

There are better ways to expand opportunities for high-performing, low-income students. Stricter rules against score-maximizing tactics that benefit the wealthy would help—such as limiting the use of "superscores" that allow students to submit their best scores on individual sections of the ACT, regardless of whether they earned them in a single test sitting. Colleges should try harder to recruit from high schools in poor and rural areas, which remain scandalously overlooked. And they should be more transparent about the cost of attendance for poor students, who are often unaware of the financial aid they’re eligible to receive.

A number of selective schools have begun making progress. Among the 131 member-institutions of the American Talent Initiative, a consortium focused on boosting access for low-income high achievers, two-thirds have increased the number of students receiving Pell Grants since 2018. Eighty percent continue to require undergraduate applicants to submit standardized-test scores.

Standardized-test scores are flawed, but they remain an indispensable tool for evaluating student potential. Abandoning them as a criterion for college admissions won’t help poor students succeed.

The University of California’s decision will ______.

The University of California’s decision to stop using SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions is a milestone for opponents of standardized testing. Given the UC system’s size and prestige, the move may pressure other elite schools to go test-blind as well.In recent years, hundreds of institutions have dropped requirements that applicants submit their SAT and ACT scores. The coronavirus outbreak has prompted elite colleges, including Harvard, to waive test scores for students applying for admission in 2021.

It’s indisputable that student performance on both the ACT and SAT is highly correlated with family incomes. As well as attending better-resourced schools, affluent students are more likely to pay for test-preparation classes, take the tests multiple times in pursuit of higher scores, and receive special "accommodations" for extra time to finish exams. Colleges should take those advantages into account when reviewing students’ scores, but discarding test results altogether is a mistake.

For one, there’s no evidence that dropping test scores helps poor students. One study of 32 liberal-arts colleges that adopted test-optional admissions found no increase in the enrollment of low-income or minority students. Another found that black and Latino enrollment rose at 14 out of 23 test-optional schools—but only 11 out of 23 enrolled more students eligible for federal Pell Grants, which go to poor students regardless of race, and one-third saw those numbers decline. How come? One reason is that applications have gone up at test-optional schools—thus making those schools more selective, which can discourage qualified, low-income students from applying.

Also, dropping the SAT requirement makes it harder for colleges to compare applicants against a common standard. That heightens the importance of grades, extracurricular activities and how many Advanced Placement classes students take in high school—all of which, again, tilt the process more heavily in favor of richer candidates.

There are better ways to expand opportunities for high-performing, low-income students. Stricter rules against score-maximizing tactics that benefit the wealthy would help—such as limiting the use of "superscores" that allow students to submit their best scores on individual sections of the ACT, regardless of whether they earned them in a single test sitting. Colleges should try harder to recruit from high schools in poor and rural areas, which remain scandalously overlooked. And they should be more transparent about the cost of attendance for poor students, who are often unaware of the financial aid they’re eligible to receive.

A number of selective schools have begun making progress. Among the 131 member-institutions of the American Talent Initiative, a consortium focused on boosting access for low-income high achievers, two-thirds have increased the number of students receiving Pell Grants since 2018. Eighty percent continue to require undergraduate applicants to submit standardized-test scores.

Standardized-test scores are flawed, but they remain an indispensable tool for evaluating student potential. Abandoning them as a criterion for college admissions won’t help poor students succeed.

According to Paragraphs 3 & 4, dropping the SAT requirement will______.

The University of California’s decision to stop using SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions is a milestone for opponents of standardized testing. Given the UC system’s size and prestige, the move may pressure other elite schools to go test-blind as well.In recent years, hundreds of institutions have dropped requirements that applicants submit their SAT and ACT scores. The coronavirus outbreak has prompted elite colleges, including Harvard, to waive test scores for students applying for admission in 2021.

It’s indisputable that student performance on both the ACT and SAT is highly correlated with family incomes. As well as attending better-resourced schools, affluent students are more likely to pay for test-preparation classes, take the tests multiple times in pursuit of higher scores, and receive special "accommodations" for extra time to finish exams. Colleges should take those advantages into account when reviewing students’ scores, but discarding test results altogether is a mistake.

For one, there’s no evidence that dropping test scores helps poor students. One study of 32 liberal-arts colleges that adopted test-optional admissions found no increase in the enrollment of low-income or minority students. Another found that black and Latino enrollment rose at 14 out of 23 test-optional schools—but only 11 out of 23 enrolled more students eligible for federal Pell Grants, which go to poor students regardless of race, and one-third saw those numbers decline. How come? One reason is that applications have gone up at test-optional schools—thus making those schools more selective, which can discourage qualified, low-income students from applying.

Also, dropping the SAT requirement makes it harder for colleges to compare applicants against a common standard. That heightens the importance of grades, extracurricular activities and how many Advanced Placement classes students take in high school—all of which, again, tilt the process more heavily in favor of richer candidates.

There are better ways to expand opportunities for high-performing, low-income students. Stricter rules against score-maximizing tactics that benefit the wealthy would help—such as limiting the use of "superscores" that allow students to submit their best scores on individual sections of the ACT, regardless of whether they earned them in a single test sitting. Colleges should try harder to recruit from high schools in poor and rural areas, which remain scandalously overlooked. And they should be more transparent about the cost of attendance for poor students, who are often unaware of the financial aid they’re eligible to receive.

A number of selective schools have begun making progress. Among the 131 member-institutions of the American Talent Initiative, a consortium focused on boosting access for low-income high achievers, two-thirds have increased the number of students receiving Pell Grants since 2018. Eighty percent continue to require undergraduate applicants to submit standardized-test scores.

Standardized-test scores are flawed, but they remain an indispensable tool for evaluating student potential. Abandoning them as a criterion for college admissions won’t help poor students succeed.

To better help high-performing unwelcome students, the author would most probably suggest______.

The University of California’s decision to stop using SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions is a milestone for opponents of standardized testing. Given the UC system’s size and prestige, the move may pressure other elite schools to go test-blind as well.In recent years, hundreds of institutions have dropped requirements that applicants submit their SAT and ACT scores. The coronavirus outbreak has prompted elite colleges, including Harvard, to waive test scores for students applying for admission in 2021.

It’s indisputable that student performance on both the ACT and SAT is highly correlated with family incomes. As well as attending better-resourced schools, affluent students are more likely to pay for test-preparation classes, take the tests multiple times in pursuit of higher scores, and receive special "accommodations" for extra time to finish exams. Colleges should take those advantages into account when reviewing students’ scores, but discarding test results altogether is a mistake.

For one, there’s no evidence that dropping test scores helps poor students. One study of 32 liberal-arts colleges that adopted test-optional admissions found no increase in the enrollment of low-income or minority students. Another found that black and Latino enrollment rose at 14 out of 23 test-optional schools—but only 11 out of 23 enrolled more students eligible for federal Pell Grants, which go to poor students regardless of race, and one-third saw those numbers decline. How come? One reason is that applications have gone up at test-optional schools—thus making those schools more selective, which can discourage qualified, low-income students from applying.

Also, dropping the SAT requirement makes it harder for colleges to compare applicants against a common standard. That heightens the importance of grades, extracurricular activities and how many Advanced Placement classes students take in high school—all of which, again, tilt the process more heavily in favor of richer candidates.

There are better ways to expand opportunities for high-performing, low-income students. Stricter rules against score-maximizing tactics that benefit the wealthy would help—such as limiting the use of "superscores" that allow students to submit their best scores on individual sections of the ACT, regardless of whether they earned them in a single test sitting. Colleges should try harder to recruit from high schools in poor and rural areas, which remain scandalously overlooked. And they should be more transparent about the cost of attendance for poor students, who are often unaware of the financial aid they’re eligible to receive.

A number of selective schools have begun making progress. Among the 131 member-institutions of the American Talent Initiative, a consortium focused on boosting access for low-income high achievers, two-thirds have increased the number of students receiving Pell Grants since 2018. Eighty percent continue to require undergraduate applicants to submit standardized-test scores.

Standardized-test scores are flawed, but they remain an indispensable tool for evaluating student potential. Abandoning them as a criterion for college admissions won’t help poor students succeed.

The American Talent Initiative is mentioned to illustrate______.

The University of California’s decision to stop using SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions is a milestone for opponents of standardized testing. Given the UC system’s size and prestige, the move may pressure other elite schools to go test-blind as well.In recent years, hundreds of institutions have dropped requirements that applicants submit their SAT and ACT scores. The coronavirus outbreak has prompted elite colleges, including Harvard, to waive test scores for students applying for admission in 2021.

It’s indisputable that student performance on both the ACT and SAT is highly correlated with family incomes. As well as attending better-resourced schools, affluent students are more likely to pay for test-preparation classes, take the tests multiple times in pursuit of higher scores, and receive special "accommodations" for extra time to finish exams. Colleges should take those advantages into account when reviewing students’ scores, but discarding test results altogether is a mistake.

For one, there’s no evidence that dropping test scores helps poor students. One study of 32 liberal-arts colleges that adopted test-optional admissions found no increase in the enrollment of low-income or minority students. Another found that black and Latino enrollment rose at 14 out of 23 test-optional schools—but only 11 out of 23 enrolled more students eligible for federal Pell Grants, which go to poor students regardless of race, and one-third saw those numbers decline. How come? One reason is that applications have gone up at test-optional schools—thus making those schools more selective, which can discourage qualified, low-income students from applying.

Also, dropping the SAT requirement makes it harder for colleges to compare applicants against a common standard. That heightens the importance of grades, extracurricular activities and how many Advanced Placement classes students take in high school—all of which, again, tilt the process more heavily in favor of richer candidates.

There are better ways to expand opportunities for high-performing, low-income students. Stricter rules against score-maximizing tactics that benefit the wealthy would help—such as limiting the use of "superscores" that allow students to submit their best scores on individual sections of the ACT, regardless of whether they earned them in a single test sitting. Colleges should try harder to recruit from high schools in poor and rural areas, which remain scandalously overlooked. And they should be more transparent about the cost of attendance for poor students, who are often unaware of the financial aid they’re eligible to receive.

A number of selective schools have begun making progress. Among the 131 member-institutions of the American Talent Initiative, a consortium focused on boosting access for low-income high achievers, two-thirds have increased the number of students receiving Pell Grants since 2018. Eighty percent continue to require undergraduate applicants to submit standardized-test scores.

Standardized-test scores are flawed, but they remain an indispensable tool for evaluating student potential. Abandoning them as a criterion for college admissions won’t help poor students succeed.

What is the author’s attitude towards the University of California’s decision?

Demographically uniform newsrooms have been producing uniformly homogeneous content for decades. "There has been so much focus on digital transformation in recent years that the question of diversity has had to stand aside," according to a study comparing diversity efforts. And yet, as the study discovered, diversity is at the very core of audience engagement today.

Before digitalization, journalists didn’t have to think about their audiences as much as they do now. Newspapers were money-printing machines—the advertising dollars poured in regardless of what would now be called "content." Likewise, public-service media faced almost no competition. But now that digital information is a commodity, with a few major platforms controlling its distribution, audience loyalty has become a matter of survival.

Many newsrooms were entirely unprepared for this new reality. They don’t even know who their potential new customers are, let alone how to reach them and win their trust. The problem is not just that newsroom homogeneity results in an incomplete view of the world and of the reading/listening public. It is that even when "outsiders" do land a job in this kind of environment, they tend to adapt to the dominant culture rather than challenge it.

The lack of diversity in the media has actually worsened in recent decades. Back in the heyday of local news, newsrooms were no less white or male, but being a journalist at least didn’t require a university degree—only a willingness to dive in and chase leads. Yet as the industry became concentrated more in big cities and employment prospects elsewhere diminished, education became yet another entry barrier. While the better-educated candidates moved up to higher-profile jobs, many others left the profession altogether.

In keeping with the industrial society of the time, the occupational model that followed from these changes was hierarchical. As with teachers and their pupils, and experts and the lay public, education conferred status and authority upon journalists. The public was a passive recipient of information, not an engaged participant in a broader conversation.

Clinging to this hierarchical structure is now a recipe for failure. The digital world of information is one of choice and abundance, but also of considerable confusion about what is true and false. Trust is a news organization’s most valuable asset, and the task for journalists is both to challenge and inspire their audience, and to invite conversations among them.

That can’t happen unless journalism represents the society in which it is operating.

Unfortunately, a recent global survey of media leaders finds that while editors see progress toward gender diversity, much more must be done to achieve racial and political diversity, as well as a balance between "urban" and "rural" backgrounds. The most likely reason for this failure is that industry leaders continue to regard the digital transformation as a matter of technology and process, rather than of talent and human capital.

What is the top issue for newsrooms to address, according to the study mentioned in Paragraph 1 ?

Demographically uniform newsrooms have been producing uniformly homogeneous content for decades. "There has been so much focus on digital transformation in recent years that the question of diversity has had to stand aside," according to a study comparing diversity efforts. And yet, as the study discovered, diversity is at the very core of audience engagement today.

Before digitalization, journalists didn’t have to think about their audiences as much as they do now. Newspapers were money-printing machines—the advertising dollars poured in regardless of what would now be called "content." Likewise, public-service media faced almost no competition. But now that digital information is a commodity, with a few major platforms controlling its distribution, audience loyalty has become a matter of survival.

Many newsrooms were entirely unprepared for this new reality. They don’t even know who their potential new customers are, let alone how to reach them and win their trust. The problem is not just that newsroom homogeneity results in an incomplete view of the world and of the reading/listening public. It is that even when "outsiders" do land a job in this kind of environment, they tend to adapt to the dominant culture rather than challenge it.

The lack of diversity in the media has actually worsened in recent decades. Back in the heyday of local news, newsrooms were no less white or male, but being a journalist at least didn’t require a university degree—only a willingness to dive in and chase leads. Yet as the industry became concentrated more in big cities and employment prospects elsewhere diminished, education became yet another entry barrier. While the better-educated candidates moved up to higher-profile jobs, many others left the profession altogether.

In keeping with the industrial society of the time, the occupational model that followed from these changes was hierarchical. As with teachers and their pupils, and experts and the lay public, education conferred status and authority upon journalists. The public was a passive recipient of information, not an engaged participant in a broader conversation.

Clinging to this hierarchical structure is now a recipe for failure. The digital world of information is one of choice and abundance, but also of considerable confusion about what is true and false. Trust is a news organization’s most valuable asset, and the task for journalists is both to challenge and inspire their audience, and to invite conversations among them.

That can’t happen unless journalism represents the society in which it is operating.

Unfortunately, a recent global survey of media leaders finds that while editors see progress toward gender diversity, much more must be done to achieve racial and political diversity, as well as a balance between "urban" and "rural" backgrounds. The most likely reason for this failure is that industry leaders continue to regard the digital transformation as a matter of technology and process, rather than of talent and human capital.

We can learn that newsrooms used to______.

Demographically uniform newsrooms have been producing uniformly homogeneous content for decades. "There has been so much focus on digital transformation in recent years that the question of diversity has had to stand aside," according to a study comparing diversity efforts. And yet, as the study discovered, diversity is at the very core of audience engagement today.

Before digitalization, journalists didn’t have to think about their audiences as much as they do now. Newspapers were money-printing machines—the advertising dollars poured in regardless of what would now be called "content." Likewise, public-service media faced almost no competition. But now that digital information is a commodity, with a few major platforms controlling its distribution, audience loyalty has become a matter of survival.

Many newsrooms were entirely unprepared for this new reality. They don’t even know who their potential new customers are, let alone how to reach them and win their trust. The problem is not just that newsroom homogeneity results in an incomplete view of the world and of the reading/listening public. It is that even when "outsiders" do land a job in this kind of environment, they tend to adapt to the dominant culture rather than challenge it.

The lack of diversity in the media has actually worsened in recent decades. Back in the heyday of local news, newsrooms were no less white or male, but being a journalist at least didn’t require a university degree—only a willingness to dive in and chase leads. Yet as the industry became concentrated more in big cities and employment prospects elsewhere diminished, education became yet another entry barrier. While the better-educated candidates moved up to higher-profile jobs, many others left the profession altogether.

In keeping with the industrial society of the time, the occupational model that followed from these changes was hierarchical. As with teachers and their pupils, and experts and the lay public, education conferred status and authority upon journalists. The public was a passive recipient of information, not an engaged participant in a broader conversation.

Clinging to this hierarchical structure is now a recipe for failure. The digital world of information is one of choice and abundance, but also of considerable confusion about what is true and false. Trust is a news organization’s most valuable asset, and the task for journalists is both to challenge and inspire their audience, and to invite conversations among them.

That can’t happen unless journalism represents the society in which it is operating.

Unfortunately, a recent global survey of media leaders finds that while editors see progress toward gender diversity, much more must be done to achieve racial and political diversity, as well as a balance between "urban" and "rural" backgrounds. The most likely reason for this failure is that industry leaders continue to regard the digital transformation as a matter of technology and process, rather than of talent and human capital.

Many people left the news industry altogether due to its_____.

Demographically uniform newsrooms have been producing uniformly homogeneous content for decades. "There has been so much focus on digital transformation in recent years that the question of diversity has had to stand aside," according to a study comparing diversity efforts. And yet, as the study discovered, diversity is at the very core of audience engagement today.

Before digitalization, journalists didn’t have to think about their audiences as much as they do now. Newspapers were money-printing machines—the advertising dollars poured in regardless of what would now be called "content." Likewise, public-service media faced almost no competition. But now that digital information is a commodity, with a few major platforms controlling its distribution, audience loyalty has become a matter of survival.

Many newsrooms were entirely unprepared for this new reality. They don’t even know who their potential new customers are, let alone how to reach them and win their trust. The problem is not just that newsroom homogeneity results in an incomplete view of the world and of the reading/listening public. It is that even when "outsiders" do land a job in this kind of environment, they tend to adapt to the dominant culture rather than challenge it.

The lack of diversity in the media has actually worsened in recent decades. Back in the heyday of local news, newsrooms were no less white or male, but being a journalist at least didn’t require a university degree—only a willingness to dive in and chase leads. Yet as the industry became concentrated more in big cities and employment prospects elsewhere diminished, education became yet another entry barrier. While the better-educated candidates moved up to higher-profile jobs, many others left the profession altogether.

In keeping with the industrial society of the time, the occupational model that followed from these changes was hierarchical. As with teachers and their pupils, and experts and the lay public, education conferred status and authority upon journalists. The public was a passive recipient of information, not an engaged participant in a broader conversation.

Clinging to this hierarchical structure is now a recipe for failure. The digital world of information is one of choice and abundance, but also of considerable confusion about what is true and false. Trust is a news organization’s most valuable asset, and the task for journalists is both to challenge and inspire their audience, and to invite conversations among them.

That can’t happen unless journalism represents the society in which it is operating.

Unfortunately, a recent global survey of media leaders finds that while editors see progress toward gender diversity, much more must be done to achieve racial and political diversity, as well as a balance between "urban" and "rural" backgrounds. The most likely reason for this failure is that industry leaders continue to regard the digital transformation as a matter of technology and process, rather than of talent and human capital.

The author suggests that journalists_____.

Demographically uniform newsrooms have been producing uniformly homogeneous content for decades. "There has been so much focus on digital transformation in recent years that the question of diversity has had to stand aside," according to a study comparing diversity efforts. And yet, as the study discovered, diversity is at the very core of audience engagement today.

Before digitalization, journalists didn’t have to think about their audiences as much as they do now. Newspapers were money-printing machines—the advertising dollars poured in regardless of what would now be called "content." Likewise, public-service media faced almost no competition. But now that digital information is a commodity, with a few major platforms controlling its distribution, audience loyalty has become a matter of survival.

Many newsrooms were entirely unprepared for this new reality. They don’t even know who their potential new customers are, let alone how to reach them and win their trust. The problem is not just that newsroom homogeneity results in an incomplete view of the world and of the reading/listening public. It is that even when "outsiders" do land a job in this kind of environment, they tend to adapt to the dominant culture rather than challenge it.

The lack of diversity in the media has actually worsened in recent decades. Back in the heyday of local news, newsrooms were no less white or male, but being a journalist at least didn’t require a university degree—only a willingness to dive in and chase leads. Yet as the industry became concentrated more in big cities and employment prospects elsewhere diminished, education became yet another entry barrier. While the better-educated candidates moved up to higher-profile jobs, many others left the profession altogether.

In keeping with the industrial society of the time, the occupational model that followed from these changes was hierarchical. As with teachers and their pupils, and experts and the lay public, education conferred status and authority upon journalists. The public was a passive recipient of information, not an engaged participant in a broader conversation.

Clinging to this hierarchical structure is now a recipe for failure. The digital world of information is one of choice and abundance, but also of considerable confusion about what is true and false. Trust is a news organization’s most valuable asset, and the task for journalists is both to challenge and inspire their audience, and to invite conversations among them.

That can’t happen unless journalism represents the society in which it is operating.

Unfortunately, a recent global survey of media leaders finds that while editors see progress toward gender diversity, much more must be done to achieve racial and political diversity, as well as a balance between "urban" and "rural" backgrounds. The most likely reason for this failure is that industry leaders continue to regard the digital transformation as a matter of technology and process, rather than of talent and human capital.

Which of the following could be the best title for this text?

Since 1785 a full English breakfast has been incomplete without a copy of the Times spread across the kitchen table. Britons will soon have the option of listening rather than reading as they chew their bacon, as Times Radio begins to broadcast for 20 hours a day during the week and 19 at weekends. The commercial aim is to warm listeners up to subscribe to the newspaper.

As readers have become less willing to pay for news, papers have tried alternative formats. Until recently the main hope was video. Seeking advertising and prominence in Facebook’s news feed, papers piled into making short films. But video was "particularly unsuited to the way that journalists actually look", says Claire Enders, a pitiless analyst. "Some of them did the most ridiculous turns. " The experience was unprofitable as well as humiliating, and the heralded "pivot to video" has since become journalistic shorthand for doom.

So the focus has shifted to audio. The success of the New York Times’s "The Daily" podcast, with 2 million downloads every weekday, persuaded editors that audio is an effective way to fish for subscribers. But Times Radio, with its all-day broadcast on digital radio, is a bigger venture. It brings opportunities: live radio has an energy that is hard to conjure in podcasts, and allows reaction to unfolding events. Times Radio will borrow assets from other parts of News UK, its parent company: the shows are being made by Wireless, a radio firm, and some presenters are from its newspapers.

Still, radio is "a massive step up from podcasts in terms of costs", says Keith Jopling of MIDIA. It is unclear whether it will be a correspondingly massive help in reaching new audiences. Radio is an oldsters’ medium: the average listener to Radio 4, the BBC’s most Times-esque station, is 56. And, whereas podcasts travel well abroad, Times Radio has a domestic focus.

For this reason, some people detect a political motive. News UK’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a long-time BBC critic; last year News UK commissioned a report claiming BBC Radio 5 Live was not meeting its regulatory obligations. In February Downing Street briefed that it had plans to "whack" the BBC. The purpose of Times Radio was thus "to have a replacement for Radio 4 at the ready when the revolution comes", believes Claire Enders, the founder of Enders Analysis.

BBC shouldn’t worry too much, given that it has 60% of radio listeners, and Radio 4 alone a budget of nearly ₤100 million. Still, Mr Murdoch, who quit the British TV business last year with the sale of Sky to Comcast, seems keen to keep a hand in British broadcasting. Times Radio may represent nothing more than table stakes for the Murdochs, but it is a game they have been playing for a long time.

It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that Britons______.

Since 1785 a full English breakfast has been incomplete without a copy of the Times spread across the kitchen table. Britons will soon have the option of listening rather than reading as they chew their bacon, as Times Radio begins to broadcast for 20 hours a day during the week and 19 at weekends. The commercial aim is to warm listeners up to subscribe to the newspaper.

As readers have become less willing to pay for news, papers have tried alternative formats. Until recently the main hope was video. Seeking advertising and prominence in Facebook’s news feed, papers piled into making short films. But video was "particularly unsuited to the way that journalists actually look", says Claire Enders, a pitiless analyst. "Some of them did the most ridiculous turns. " The experience was unprofitable as well as humiliating, and the heralded "pivot to video" has since become journalistic shorthand for doom.

So the focus has shifted to audio. The success of the New York Times’s "The Daily" podcast, with 2 million downloads every weekday, persuaded editors that audio is an effective way to fish for subscribers. But Times Radio, with its all-day broadcast on digital radio, is a bigger venture. It brings opportunities: live radio has an energy that is hard to conjure in podcasts, and allows reaction to unfolding events. Times Radio will borrow assets from other parts of News UK, its parent company: the shows are being made by Wireless, a radio firm, and some presenters are from its newspapers.

Still, radio is "a massive step up from podcasts in terms of costs", says Keith Jopling of MIDIA. It is unclear whether it will be a correspondingly massive help in reaching new audiences. Radio is an oldsters’ medium: the average listener to Radio 4, the BBC’s most Times-esque station, is 56. And, whereas podcasts travel well abroad, Times Radio has a domestic focus.

For this reason, some people detect a political motive. News UK’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a long-time BBC critic; last year News UK commissioned a report claiming BBC Radio 5 Live was not meeting its regulatory obligations. In February Downing Street briefed that it had plans to "whack" the BBC. The purpose of Times Radio was thus "to have a replacement for Radio 4 at the ready when the revolution comes", believes Claire Enders, the founder of Enders Analysis.

BBC shouldn’t worry too much, given that it has 60% of radio listeners, and Radio 4 alone a budget of nearly ₤100 million. Still, Mr Murdoch, who quit the British TV business last year with the sale of Sky to Comcast, seems keen to keep a hand in British broadcasting. Times Radio may represent nothing more than table stakes for the Murdochs, but it is a game they have been playing for a long time.

The strategy of "pivot to video" has failed due to______.

Since 1785 a full English breakfast has been incomplete without a copy of the Times spread across the kitchen table. Britons will soon have the option of listening rather than reading as they chew their bacon, as Times Radio begins to broadcast for 20 hours a day during the week and 19 at weekends. The commercial aim is to warm listeners up to subscribe to the newspaper.

As readers have become less willing to pay for news, papers have tried alternative formats. Until recently the main hope was video. Seeking advertising and prominence in Facebook’s news feed, papers piled into making short films. But video was "particularly unsuited to the way that journalists actually look", says Claire Enders, a pitiless analyst. "Some of them did the most ridiculous turns. " The experience was unprofitable as well as humiliating, and the heralded "pivot to video" has since become journalistic shorthand for doom.

So the focus has shifted to audio. The success of the New York Times’s "The Daily" podcast, with 2 million downloads every weekday, persuaded editors that audio is an effective way to fish for subscribers. But Times Radio, with its all-day broadcast on digital radio, is a bigger venture. It brings opportunities: live radio has an energy that is hard to conjure in podcasts, and allows reaction to unfolding events. Times Radio will borrow assets from other parts of News UK, its parent company: the shows are being made by Wireless, a radio firm, and some presenters are from its newspapers.

Still, radio is "a massive step up from podcasts in terms of costs", says Keith Jopling of MIDIA. It is unclear whether it will be a correspondingly massive help in reaching new audiences. Radio is an oldsters’ medium: the average listener to Radio 4, the BBC’s most Times-esque station, is 56. And, whereas podcasts travel well abroad, Times Radio has a domestic focus.

For this reason, some people detect a political motive. News UK’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a long-time BBC critic; last year News UK commissioned a report claiming BBC Radio 5 Live was not meeting its regulatory obligations. In February Downing Street briefed that it had plans to "whack" the BBC. The purpose of Times Radio was thus "to have a replacement for Radio 4 at the ready when the revolution comes", believes Claire Enders, the founder of Enders Analysis.

BBC shouldn’t worry too much, given that it has 60% of radio listeners, and Radio 4 alone a budget of nearly ₤100 million. Still, Mr Murdoch, who quit the British TV business last year with the sale of Sky to Comcast, seems keen to keep a hand in British broadcasting. Times Radio may represent nothing more than table stakes for the Murdochs, but it is a game they have been playing for a long time.

According to Paragraphs 3 and 4, the Times’ broadcasting______.

Since 1785 a full English breakfast has been incomplete without a copy of the Times spread across the kitchen table. Britons will soon have the option of listening rather than reading as they chew their bacon, as Times Radio begins to broadcast for 20 hours a day during the week and 19 at weekends. The commercial aim is to warm listeners up to subscribe to the newspaper.

As readers have become less willing to pay for news, papers have tried alternative formats. Until recently the main hope was video. Seeking advertising and prominence in Facebook’s news feed, papers piled into making short films. But video was "particularly unsuited to the way that journalists actually look", says Claire Enders, a pitiless analyst. "Some of them did the most ridiculous turns. " The experience was unprofitable as well as humiliating, and the heralded "pivot to video" has since become journalistic shorthand for doom.

So the focus has shifted to audio. The success of the New York Times’s "The Daily" podcast, with 2 million downloads every weekday, persuaded editors that audio is an effective way to fish for subscribers. But Times Radio, with its all-day broadcast on digital radio, is a bigger venture. It brings opportunities: live radio has an energy that is hard to conjure in podcasts, and allows reaction to unfolding events. Times Radio will borrow assets from other parts of News UK, its parent company: the shows are being made by Wireless, a radio firm, and some presenters are from its newspapers.

Still, radio is "a massive step up from podcasts in terms of costs", says Keith Jopling of MIDIA. It is unclear whether it will be a correspondingly massive help in reaching new audiences. Radio is an oldsters’ medium: the average listener to Radio 4, the BBC’s most Times-esque station, is 56. And, whereas podcasts travel well abroad, Times Radio has a domestic focus.

For this reason, some people detect a political motive. News UK’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a long-time BBC critic; last year News UK commissioned a report claiming BBC Radio 5 Live was not meeting its regulatory obligations. In February Downing Street briefed that it had plans to "whack" the BBC. The purpose of Times Radio was thus "to have a replacement for Radio 4 at the ready when the revolution comes", believes Claire Enders, the founder of Enders Analysis.

BBC shouldn’t worry too much, given that it has 60% of radio listeners, and Radio 4 alone a budget of nearly ₤100 million. Still, Mr Murdoch, who quit the British TV business last year with the sale of Sky to Comcast, seems keen to keep a hand in British broadcasting. Times Radio may represent nothing more than table stakes for the Murdochs, but it is a game they have been playing for a long time.

In Claire Enders’s opinion, the purpose of Times Radio is______.

Since 1785 a full English breakfast has been incomplete without a copy of the Times spread across the kitchen table. Britons will soon have the option of listening rather than reading as they chew their bacon, as Times Radio begins to broadcast for 20 hours a day during the week and 19 at weekends. The commercial aim is to warm listeners up to subscribe to the newspaper.

As readers have become less willing to pay for news, papers have tried alternative formats. Until recently the main hope was video. Seeking advertising and prominence in Facebook’s news feed, papers piled into making short films. But video was "particularly unsuited to the way that journalists actually look", says Claire Enders, a pitiless analyst. "Some of them did the most ridiculous turns. " The experience was unprofitable as well as humiliating, and the heralded "pivot to video" has since become journalistic shorthand for doom.

So the focus has shifted to audio. The success of the New York Times’s "The Daily" podcast, with 2 million downloads every weekday, persuaded editors that audio is an effective way to fish for subscribers. But Times Radio, with its all-day broadcast on digital radio, is a bigger venture. It brings opportunities: live radio has an energy that is hard to conjure in podcasts, and allows reaction to unfolding events. Times Radio will borrow assets from other parts of News UK, its parent company: the shows are being made by Wireless, a radio firm, and some presenters are from its newspapers.

Still, radio is "a massive step up from podcasts in terms of costs", says Keith Jopling of MIDIA. It is unclear whether it will be a correspondingly massive help in reaching new audiences. Radio is an oldsters’ medium: the average listener to Radio 4, the BBC’s most Times-esque station, is 56. And, whereas podcasts travel well abroad, Times Radio has a domestic focus.

For this reason, some people detect a political motive. News UK’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a long-time BBC critic; last year News UK commissioned a report claiming BBC Radio 5 Live was not meeting its regulatory obligations. In February Downing Street briefed that it had plans to "whack" the BBC. The purpose of Times Radio was thus "to have a replacement for Radio 4 at the ready when the revolution comes", believes Claire Enders, the founder of Enders Analysis.

BBC shouldn’t worry too much, given that it has 60% of radio listeners, and Radio 4 alone a budget of nearly ₤100 million. Still, Mr Murdoch, who quit the British TV business last year with the sale of Sky to Comcast, seems keen to keep a hand in British broadcasting. Times Radio may represent nothing more than table stakes for the Murdochs, but it is a game they have been playing for a long time.

Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?