Many people believe that media coverage of celebrities is having a negative effect on children.
To what extent do you agree?
Two days ago, I read an article about the impact that the news about famous people on youngsters in Kazakhstan. In the article, some social workers state that it is disadvantageous to them. However, some journalists argue that its influence is neutral. In this essay, I will discuss both points of view and agree with the idea of negative consequences.
Let us start with the reasons why some social workers advocate that the information about celebrities in the media has an unfavorable influence on children. The first reason is that it usually instills false values. Many teenagers, for example, become rebellious to their parental recommendations, when they hear on TV that their favorite celebrities are disobedient to their parents, but they are reluctant to believe that this news might be irrelevant to their private lives and often intended to attract more viewers. Another reason is that it may lead to misunderstanding. Many children face rejection in society, because they tend to copy the unacceptable behavioral patterns of their idols, which is widely covered in both the newspapers and television. Therefore, after the analysis of these reasons, it is clear that media coverage about celebrities affects children negatively.
Nevertheless, some journalists think that it has no negative impact on the youth. They justify their opinion with the following arguments. Firstly, it generally informs children about celebrities with socially accepted background. TV programs, for instance, mainly broadcasts inspiring stories about famous people, since this type of news attracts a larger audience, which boosts their sales of advertising time. Secondly, it frequently rejects to cover infamous individuals. Even though community readily listens to the news about scandals in popular families, mass media tend to decline to take advantage of it, as it can ruin the mental development of immature people. As a result, after the consideration of these arguments, it is obvious that media coverage about celebrities largely raises indifferent emotions in youngsters.
In conclusion, although some journalists say that their work about popular individuals usually causes no detrimental effect on youngsters, I believe that it is harmful to children for the above mentioned reasons.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 47.0 24.0651302605 195% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1951.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 352.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54261363636 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03107693124 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579545454545 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 602.1 506.74238477 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.10420841683 428% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.2280300521 49.4020404114 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.388888889 106.682146367 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5555555556 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.11111111111 7.06120827912 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165125666588 0.244688304435 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469696531464 0.084324248473 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0473020023821 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0958097732639 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030936264898 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 78.4519038076 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: 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.