Claim: The emergence of the online "blogosphere" has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably

The age of the Internet is certainly how this century will be remembered. Apart from the myriad uses it has, few of the most popular are social media and blogs. These have revolutionised how we interact with one another and our discourse be it political, social or anything. Yes, thanks to these utilities of the Internet, we are more connected than ever before.

Before the emergence of the "blogosphere" and various social media portals such as Twitter, Facebook & Quora etc, most of the Americans were just passively consuming the political news. But now, many of them have a voice; Internet at their disposal to be active politically. This increase in the number of political opinions being aired owing to the ease of access of the platforms available is welcome and much needed. Political discourse is not like a broth that gets spoilt if there are too many cooks. It is rather something that should involve all citizens of a democracy. What good is democracy if it doesn't have a pluralistic political discourse?

With this fast changing scenario, the conventional news portals are also adapting their coverage of the political topics. For examples, a viewer can very easily and effectively convey their grievances or political opinions to the contesting candidates or elected representatives by simply tweeting to the news show handle. Though anyone can publish their political opinions easily, only those gain traction which have been articulated well and have substance. This is like an automatic quality check inherent to the blogs and other social media. Since multiple views are now available, the problems of every section of the society can be put forward. Hence, to say that the standards of news and political coverage will decline is quite a pessimistic view and far from reality.

In the times gone by, where printed books or newspapers were not available and when the radio did not exist, only the rich and powerful could hijack the political discourse. Similar scenario existed until recently, when the television and Internet became main-stream. But thankfully, with the advent of the blogoshpere, one doesn't have to be a royal to be a part of the political discourse. Pushing ulterior motives and unquestioned populist propaganda, which make for a poor quality and misleading political discourse or news, can be tackled much easily in the “blogosphere” and social media. Be it Clinton or Sanders or even Trump, all of them have pretty much the same reach to the electorate and vulnerability to being questioned despite the differences in their campaigns and funding levels, thanks to the social media.

In a nutshell, the political discourse has become a lot of more inclusive and is of superior quality due to the participation of ordinary citizens. USA being a democracy, not having a political dialogue that engages citizens in an active way is how I would indentify ‘poor quality’ of news. Barring a few exceptions like trolls, the political discourse is definitely richer as a result of more and more people being involved in it.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pessimistic view and far from reality. In the times gone by, where printed book...
^^^
Line 9, column 226, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an active way" with adverb for "active"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...olitical dialogue that engages citizens in an active way is how I would indentify 'poor qua...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'hence', 'if', 'so', 'well', 'apart from', 'for example', 'such as', 'as a result']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.227979274611 0.240241500013 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.134715025907 0.157235817809 86% => OK
Adjectives: 0.107081174439 0.0880659088768 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0656303972366 0.0497285424764 132% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0293609671848 0.0444667217837 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0932642487047 0.12292977631 76% => OK
Participles: 0.0431778929188 0.0406280797675 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.06810194731 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0224525043178 0.030933414821 73% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.110535405872 0.0997080785238 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0155440414508 0.0249443105267 62% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.020725388601 0.0148568991511 140% => OK

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3108.0 2732.02544248 114% => OK
No of words: 504.0 452.878318584 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.16666666667 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.58838876751 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.382936507937 0.366273622748 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.299603174603 0.280924506359 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.230158730159 0.200843997647 115% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.166666666667 0.132149295362 126% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06810194731 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 219.290929204 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53373015873 0.48968727796 109% => OK
Word variations: 64.7314924672 55.4138127331 117% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.380412469 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6051897632 59.4972553346 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.5 141.124799967 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.380412469 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.416666666667 0.674092028746 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 50.9603174603 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.58646616541 1.64882698954 96% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.561174516837 0.391690518653 143% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0935415435194 0.123202303941 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0542896195577 0.077325440228 70% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.511464072556 0.547984918172 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.124412344635 0.149214159877 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.209450032403 0.161403998019 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106537452411 0.0892212321368 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.439179354841 0.385218514788 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0622074618477 0.0692045440612 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.390702656503 0.275328986314 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061246757704 0.0653680567796 94% => OK

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.4325221239 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.30420353982 94% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88274336283 82% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 7.22455752212 152% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 13.5995575221 125% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.