The rise of the internet and mass media has clearly revolutionised the way the public gets its information. Whilst in some aspects this has been a positive change, it is clear that we are still learning to deal with this plethora of information.
It is easy to argue for the advantages of mass media. The fact that people are able to access the news in so many different forms and at any time of the day has undoubtedly increased the average citizen's knowledge of current affairs. Some argue that this collective increase is leading to a more informed society, able to hold its leaders to account more effectively and making more informed decisions on larger political issues such as the economy and foreign policy.
However there is evidence that the reality is not quite so utopian. With an exponentially increasing rate of content creation, it becomes more and more difficult for publishers to fully fact check their articles and makes it easier for others to spread baseless rumours. It is entirely possible that 20-30 years ago Donald Trump's claims about Barack Obama's birthplace would have been immediately stifled by the news corporations of the time. In contrast, in 2008 the rate at which the rumour spread amongst the American public eventually prompted Obama to release his birth certificate.
Another worrying trend fueled by our increasingly digitised news intake is a phenomenon known as the "ideological echo chamber". Sources of bias, be they a slight resistance to a policy or a vehement opposition to a political party, are present in all sources of news media. With people increasingly getting most of their news stories from links on social media, they are limited to reading articles shared by their friends or suggested by various algorithms. In both these cases the stories are likely to come from sources which align with the readers' political viewpoint and also to come from smaller news organisations, more likely to exhibit large biases. This "echo chamber" leads people to drift further and further to their respective left or right wing leading to an increasingly partisan socio-political environment. One only needs to look at the result of Britains' EU referendum, where most who voted to remain (typically the younger, more digital generation) were left in complete shock that the majority of their compatriots did not share their opinion. This year's US presidential election also exhibits this effect, with both parties' candidates setting records for unfavourability.
Although the advancement of technology is generally a benefit to society, it is clear that we have not yet adapted to the swarms of information available to us today. As this flow of stories continues increase we must seek to implement regulations to ensure that our news is more balanced and representative of truth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 110, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...eople are able to access the news in so many different forms and at any time of the day has un...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 196, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'citizens'' or 'citizen's'?
Suggestion: citizens'; citizen's
...y has undoubtedly increased the average citizens knowledge of current affairs. Some argu...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...h as the economy and foreign policy. However there is evidence that the reality is n...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'still', 'in contrast', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.250497017893 0.240241500013 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.153081510934 0.157235817809 97% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0994035785288 0.0880659088768 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0675944333996 0.0497285424764 136% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0457256461233 0.0444667217837 103% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113320079523 0.12292977631 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0457256461233 0.0406280797675 113% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94610389171 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0497017892644 0.030933414821 161% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0974155069583 0.0997080785238 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00397614314115 0.0249443105267 16% => Some modal verbs wanted.
WH_determiners: 0.00795228628231 0.0148568991511 54% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2845.0 2732.02544248 104% => OK
No of words: 461.0 452.878318584 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.17136659436 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.381778741866 0.366273622748 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.299349240781 0.280924506359 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.201735357918 0.200843997647 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127982646421 0.132149295362 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94610389171 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 219.290929204 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566160520607 0.48968727796 116% => OK
Word variations: 69.1490732374 55.4138127331 125% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6194690265 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.6111111111 23.380412469 110% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8877610076 59.4972553346 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.055555556 141.124799967 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6111111111 23.380412469 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.444444444444 0.674092028746 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.21349557522 58% => OK
Readability: 55.5460351892 51.4728631049 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.53731343284 1.64882698954 93% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.383357749718 0.391690518653 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0804248770224 0.123202303941 65% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0526755511158 0.077325440228 68% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.526339608652 0.547984918172 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.147541651551 0.149214159877 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151119931496 0.161403998019 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0578712269783 0.0892212321368 65% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.367701141647 0.385218514788 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0425411181132 0.0692045440612 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.255821633408 0.275328986314 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460427221585 0.0653680567796 70% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.4325221239 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.30420353982 57% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 7.22455752212 111% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 13.5995575221 81% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.