The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.
Political discussions are intrinsically catholic issues which attracts the attention of anyone and indeed everyone. From the stone age to the digital age, every society has some form of leadership system that her citizens will find pertinent as matters of discourse. Political occurrences are usually not secretive nor tagged as confidential. This explains why anyone can publish political opinions whether online or offline. Hence, to purport that blogs and social media waters down the quality of it's discourse is to maintain an overly myopic view.
Prior to blogs and social media, fake news have never been a strange occurrence. Anyone can disseminate any kind of information which does not necessarily have to be done online. Can we then attribute the consequence of such misleading information to the social media or blogs alone and exonerate the person who couldn't verify ordinary information? Even the computers we use today must process all data into information before it displays it to the output unit. Hence, man should be able to verify all opinions as well before indulging in discussions.
So, it is important to state that opinions are not necessarily facts nor truths on their own. Do we have to talk about standards from a general view or should standards be a bit more personal? If someone's standard decline, it is because the person has a loose grip on being fastidious to deep dive into occurrences and find what quality news really looks like. In fact, the problem of poor quality is not with the blogs, but the individuals who carry the news. These individuals can be found anywhere. In other words, if someone who personal life standards are low, joins a conventional newspaper publishing company, one is still likely to prone to spreading unverified news.
In Nigeria, for example, there are traditional news media firms including Daily Sun, Daily Trust, The Punch, etc. These media run parallel with the online ones including Legit.ng, nairaland.com, sabinews.com etc. These two contemporary bodies now serve as check for each other such that if one carries fake news, the other begins to gain more audience and vice versa. Also, the standards for covering news have not changed either because no agency will want to lose the battle at any point so they can always win the war.
Therefore, the emergence of online media is not the cause of weakened quality of political discourse because it is actually humans that indulge in the discussions and not robots. Again, online media has rather served as a check for quality news becuase the competition between it and the conventional news media results into faster, better and quality information spread.
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority. 58
- Some people it is imperative for individuals living in developed nations to reduce energy consumption and lead a more sustainable lifestyle given the evidence of global climatic change. 50
- A recent survey on 250 adults show that people who want to increase well being should decrease the amount of time they spend online 61
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers. 83
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 313, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...logs alone and exonerate the person who couldnt verify ordinary information? Even the c...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 530, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a personal'.
Suggestion: who is a personal
...nd anywhere. In other words, if someone who personal life standards are low, joins a convent...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, if, look, really, so, still, then, therefore, well, for example, in fact, kind of, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2257.0 2235.4752809 101% => OK
No of words: 440.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12954545455 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69954752101 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570454545455 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 724.5 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.5184076786 60.3974514979 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.590909091 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.68181818182 5.21951772744 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170087741056 0.243740707755 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0498791313401 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685541547606 0.0758088955206 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10788162889 0.150359130593 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0905426408192 0.0667264976115 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.