In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Media in this age is based on content that can catch the public's eye. Keeping a tab on the number of 'likes' on their social media posts, a great many news outlets have started putting out clickbait stories that help them attract a larger number of subscribers and readers, keeping them and their advertisers happy. This kind of 'junk journalism' has become the norm, with even the prominent media outlets becoming prey to the phenomenon. Sensational stories about famous personalities, no matter how intrusive, are flashed on our television screens and make the headlines in our national newspapers, almost as if the whole nation is gossiping about the personal details of that person collectively. Prying into personal details of these famous people's lives has become the standard, and it is almost impossible for any living man and woman to escape this kind of scrutiny at the hands of news channels, magazines and newspapers. Therefore, I strongly agree with the author's statement that in today's age of intensive media coverage, it has become impossible for any living man and woman to emerge an unbruised hero.
Major media outlets today are in the control of powerful businesses, who often have their own political and social agendas that they wish to project on the public. This has become an accepted fact that one cannot shy away from. As much as we would want media houses to be havens for independent and factual journalism, the reality presents a much grim picture. Take the example of former US president Barrack Obama. Come election time, many right wing news channels in the US went after him and accused him of not being a natural born citizen of the country. He was called a Muslim, and an illegal citizen just to sway voters and feed them wrong information. The left-wing media outlets are no better, as they too employ such tactics to forward their own idealogical agendas. In such a case, it becomes impossible for a man or a woman, even though he or she might be a widely liked and respected leader, to maintain a clean reputation of being a hero in the minds of everyone. False claims and accusations by the opposite side are perpetuated, and the person's reputation is dented inevitably in the minds of impressionable and naive people. Even if such claims are right, sometimes the so-called 'news' coverage on a personality's personal life puts them on a moral pedestal wherein if the public dsiagrees with the person's choices, he or she faces the brunt of their disapproval.
Media outlets are also malleable in terms of adapting quickly to the direction where the wind is blowing. To increase their viewership and subscriptions, they often go ahead with what the popular public opinion is instead of doing a just investigation before presenting views based on facts. A widely-respected liberal author might suddenly become anti-national if his views do not align well with those of the majority of the population. Such misconstrued pictures of academics, authors and scientists are often painted by media outlets to bolster the public's view, wherein their duty simply becomes to feed their already biased minds.
It becomes hard in today's day and age to find a man or a woman that has been unequivocally hailed as a hero by all. Driven personal interests and the interests of those who control them, media outlets with opposing views, make it a mission to taint a person's achievements by hook or by crook. I believe it is upon the audience and the society to discern right from wrong, and become smarter and more perceptive to media coverage around them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-10 | Fahim Shahriar Khan | 66 | view |
| 2023-02-12 | Yam Kumar Oli | 79 | view |
| 2022-10-11 | mojammel1501114 | 50 | view |
| 2022-05-27 | Ahmed.I | 62 | view |
| 2022-05-27 | anon7652 | 54 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 964, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s. Therefore, I strongly agree with the authors statement that in todays age of intensi...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1053, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
... opposite side are perpetuated, and the persons reputation is dented inevitably in the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, therefore, well, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 28.0 14.8657303371 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 33.0505617978 157% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2981.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 606.0 442.535393258 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91914191419 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96155895361 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7200491433 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 316.0 215.323595506 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521452145215 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 943.2 704.065955056 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6527578468 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.608695652 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.347826087 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.65217391304 5.21951772744 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164591618055 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0501848476085 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629679594316 0.0758088955206 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102982598049 0.150359130593 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593748156819 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
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.