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.
Has the age of intensive media coverage upped the ante for a man or woman to become a hero? The author asserts so, perhaps referring to the fact that no individual is perfect and media scrutiny often uncovers faults in people who we otherwise hail as heroes. I disagree, and contend with the following arguments.
Firstly, the claim that any flaw that is found in our heroes will repel the society undermines the society’s ability to judge people. People can regard heroes for merits in one sphere of life while keeping apart vices that they may suffer from in other spheres. Consider the legendary actor Brad Pitt, for example. With multiple academy awards under his belt, his legacy in the world of cinema hasn’t been stained despite multiple failures in his personal life. Even with the unwarranted attention by the media on his several divorces, most people still herald him as one of the finest actors in our generation. This goes to show that even with problems or incompetencies a person may have in one field, the society can judge and pronounce heroes based on talent in other exclusive fields.
Further, intense media coverage has in fact filtered true heroes from the pretend ones. Often, media scrutiny has uncovered several fraudsters who were misleading their followers by donning a fake mask. The testament to this is the recent falling of several sanctimonious gurus who were culminated by women for rape in the ‘me too’ movement. Many Indian gurus who pretended to take a moral high ground and were feted by their followers to be an avatar of god himself were found in jail cells after they were caught misusing their power to brainwash innocent girl children. This is a direct result of 21st century’s journalism push where the media isn’t afraid of uncovering the truth even by attacking established heroes.
Finally, contrary to the author’s claims, the increase in media coverage due to technological advancements has brought in limelight exceptional scholars in obscure fields. Take, for example, Greta Thunberg, a Swedish teenager whose video showing her outrage on the authority’s disregard towards the environment went viral. In seconds, millions of online viewers on various media platforms made her an overnight celebrity. She consequently was able to leverage this pedestal and bring in actual environmental reform in Sweden’s and the world’s policies. Such episodes would be impossible without the media’s intense hunger to immediately showcase the most worthy actions, irrespective of the individual, to the public.
Clearly, any claim disparaging the effect of new age media on evaluating heroes is indefensible. It not only undermines the society’s ability to judge, but overlooks the filtering effect it has had on identifying heroes actually worthy of praise. It also ignores how media now plays an instrumental role in quickly awarding actions that deserve praise, regardless of the person behind them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 346, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to praise'
Suggestion: to praise
...n quickly awarding actions that deserve praise, regardless of the person behind them. ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, so, still, while, for example, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2499.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 477.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23899371069 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74899609855 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603773584906 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.8230408122 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.590909091 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6818181818 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.200201672554 0.243740707755 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0600079087428 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590830377809 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110226761879 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433883415407 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 100.480337079 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.