Today, there are more images of disasters and violence in the media. What are the causes and what are your solutions?
Nowadays people are inundated a range of catastrophic and violent pictures. I believe the main reason for this phenomenon lies in media agencies’ pursuit of profits, and government and media companies should work side by side to tackle this problem.
Media agencies are to blame for the increasing number of violent and disaster-related images nowadays. Private companies in newspaper, television programme and radio broadcasting fields, at their cores, are profit-making companies who focus on drawing more audience’s attention to outcompete their rivals. Such is human nature that people tend to be concerned about negative information, so disseminating information related to violence or disasters is no doubt an efficient way to hook viewers and engender discussions. For example, a recent poll conducted by the BBC news found that 79% of its application users included crimes topic to their favorite news feed.
In order to tackle this problem, a concerted effort from governments and media companies should be encouraged. Firstly, some degree of censorship from the government is necessary to help control the number of negative images and curb the distribution of bloody pictures which might do a disservice to the emotional wellbeing of the public. Fines needed to be imposed when companies are found violating relevant rules. Secondly, media organizations ought to shoulder the responsibility of creating a more positive social environment. Media networks need to allow diversity in their coverage by including more positive news and information, in which way diverts pubic attention and therefore foster an optimistic social environment. Only by doing so can we ensure a more balanced and objective coverage from the media.
To conclude, while media organizations’ profit-making nature is the main factor fueling the over- exposure of catastrophes and violence, I believe a joint effort from government and media should be exerted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 625, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'crimes'' or 'crime's'?
Suggestion: crimes'; crime's
...t 79% of its application users included crimes topic to their favorite news feed. ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 661, Rule ID: PUBIC_X[1]
Message: Did you mean 'public'?
Suggestion: public
...s and information, in which way diverts pubic attention and therefore foster an optim...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, for example, in fact, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1660.0 1615.20841683 103% => OK
No of words: 297.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.58922558923 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16522672607 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589225589226 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 526.5 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2595810858 49.4020404114 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.692307692 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8461538462 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46153846154 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1385641377 0.244688304435 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509713993778 0.084324248473 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0403090945757 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0791043870291 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0243924215303 0.056905535591 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.