Are famous people treated unfairly by the media? Should they be given more privacy, or is the price of their fame an invastion into their private life?
In recent decades, media has rapidly evolved and modified significantly many media companies in their approach. However, the threat with celebrities’ privacy is just one of many inevitable effects of fame that have been predetermined thing.
Firstly, social networks should be considered fair in a wide range since many channels make and broadcast different information or even hostile opinions. In fact, the increased and modernized media has reached its goal when the information has effectively and expeditiously broadcasted, and gained mass attention from the public. Those perks have directly contributed towards the extension of well-known people’s influence and reputation. Secondly, people who leave any libel or slander against innocent celebrities can be easily brought to trial, which renders restricting criticism and unverified information. Thereby, blaming and criticizing for media from failing to meet the industry standards on privacy issues, especially when it involves celebrities is not fully persuasive and correct.
It should be conceded that fame and media attention are tied to one other. Public figures should expect a reasonable level of intrusion upon seclusion and biases from the media as this is a cost that must be paid of famous. Moreover, this suggests that after received a myriad of perks from media, celebrities should share the responsibilities on privacy issues rather than blame for media all of the faults. In fact, with the support and attention of the public as well as the affection of them, famous ones should heighten their awareness and show the responsibilities with communities about their privacy. Thus, famous people should not be infuriated, straightforwardly because the media has just simply been doing its regular job.
In conclusion, well-known ones have been treated fairly by the media because of the increasing and stronger punishment of laws that protect everyone's privacy. It is important that the appropriate commitments get the consent of both celebrities and the media.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-07 | ngoctham4344 | 78 | view |
| 2020-04-21 | trananh13052001 | 89 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 390, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...vacy issues rather than blame for media all of the faults. In fact, with the support and a...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, well, in conclusion, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1731.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 311.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56591639871 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04164428604 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594855305466 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 526.5 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6899917372 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.642857143 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2142857143 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245892049926 0.244688304435 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0847661498142 0.084324248473 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485521854796 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139697179184 0.151304729494 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0759637523674 0.056905535591 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.4159519038 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.