Claim: The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media 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 decline.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The claim states that the increasing usage of social media has weakened the quality of political discussion in the US because just about any and everyone can post anything political, accurate or not, easily. As a result, giving way to more opinion based information rather than formally educated posts.
While there is some legitimacy in this argument, I would ultimately have to disagree with this claim on the basis of the simple idea that "knowledge is power". This is often related to the importance of receiving a good education. Nonetheless, the importance stands relevant to this claim. The idea of "knowledge is power" basically means the more you know the more power you have to make change in your personal life or even in your society. Thus, the emergence of social media as a tool for political discourse is actually not weakness, but actually a strength within the US.
In comparison to other countries, the average American's knowledge of the political atmosphere in their country is dumbfounding. The average American has been known to have little to no knowledge about how the American political system works and the current status. If you ask an average American on the street to name their state senator or ask how the electoral college works, 8 out of 10 people would not be able to answer those questions. However, with social media, politics have become much more common place to just about everyone who has access to the internet. There are more videos, blogs, and posts that break down the very nature of the American political system in simpler terms for the public to understand. With more exposure, comes more awareness. The sheer presence of politics in social media has strengthened the average American's knowledge of their own political system. Understanding politics is no longer just for those who study political science or other political experts, but the entirety of the public.
Along with the strengthening of the foundational concepts of politics, social media has also gotten people to start talking about politics. After obtaining this knowledge, people start forming their own opinion on what's going on. The claim reasons that this is the reason for the decline in quality. Despite the possibility for lack of correct vocabulary and some inaccuracies in understanding politics, I would argue that open political discourse on social media is a major improvement in the US. People are not only able to gain knowledge from other peers, but they are capable to argue and change others opinions. This whole of online political debate process is ultimately another method of receiving important information on the American politics. These political debates also has the ability to incite people to go into action and make change then ever before.
I understand the reasoning behind the original claim. The possibility that uneducated people posting about politics on social media can influence a large part of society is highly plausible. For example, Wikipedia has been disregarded as a reliable source for that same reason, anybody can edit information with out proper clearance. However, political discussion, like Wikipedia, has nonetheless brought so much more information to the average than ever before, and I believe that takes precedence.
In conclusion, I believe the emergence of social media has become an important tool in political discourse in the US. Not only because it allows the public to have access to immense about of information, but it can also allow people to further practice and enhance their analytical thinking and problem solving skills through online political debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 214, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: what's
...ople start forming their own opinion on whats going on. The claim reasons that this i...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 307, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
...me reason, anybody can edit information with out proper clearance. However, political di...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, nonetheless, so, then, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, talking about, you know, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 58.6224719101 147% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3069.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 589.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21052631579 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92639038232 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79155149244 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475382003396 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 1020.6 704.065955056 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3209641989 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.607142857 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0357142857 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78571428571 5.21951772744 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.337879282678 0.243740707755 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0949365408004 0.0831039109588 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0697718027781 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183584429698 0.150359130593 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00877795333767 0.0667264976115 13% => 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: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.