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.
With the advancement of technology shaping our everyday lives, it comes at no surprise that platforms designed originally to connect friends online have begun to alter our interactions in the real world. Seeing as politics is a hot topic for debate, it is inevitable that social media platforms and the emergence of the online "blogosphere" has changed the way discourse ensues. Some people believe that this engagement of social media with politics is detrimental to political discourse and will lower the standards for political topics in the news. However, it seems that social media cannot be the culprit of such a blame and is merely enhancing how we connect with others and share our thoughts and opinions on political issues.
The claim cites as reason that if more people can publish political opinions due to the ease at which this is perfomed via social media, then the standards upheld for news reporters on covering these topics will subsequently decline. Although this is not faulty reasoning, this reasoning appears to miss the point of discourse as a whole. Keeping political discourse reserved to news reporters and other qualified individuals limits the potential for other points of view that can provide insightful thoughts in discourse. In fact, if more people are getting involved in political discourse via social media and engaging in politics, this seems to only result in many benefits. If more people are able to engage in political discourse with their online acquaintinces, then they will likely learn how to mold their opinions around the ideas of others and even educate those without much of a political background. Although allowing everyone to be entitled to his opinion can certainly result in faulty reasoning being advertised as the truth, this is simply inevitable when such a freedom is granted to the masses. Thus, it is the job of the user to educate himself using trustworthy resources along with the opinions of his peers so that he can ensure he is not believing a lie.
Although the argument claims that the wedding of social media and political discourse will lower the standards for news reporters, this claim appears to be near-sighted. Even if the blogosphere is contributing to a significant portion of political discourse, this is only significant if the blogosphere is citing credible sources. The blogosphere is not generating its own opinions without any support to back them up. Rather, the blogosphere is likely citing news articles and other prominent political figures and activists in its political discourse. Thus, news reporters still play an essential role in politics even with the rise of its popularity amongst the masses. News reporters have the ability to enter private places and interview people of interest and gain details on issues the public is unaware of. Their standards of reporting are unlikely to diminish due to the growing blogosphere since news reporters tend to be the primary source of most people's political opinions. Such logic parallels the history of women voters. Before they were allowed to vote, men thought that women voters would flood the pool of votes and be weaken the right to vote. However, it is apparent now that such thinking is not the case, and in fact voting is even more reflective on the general population's opinion now since voting is not exclusive. Furthermore, more people voting does not take away from standards held for government officials.
A democracy is built upon allowing every citizen to have a voice. This is further supported by the first amendment, in which everyone is granted freedom of speech. By claiming that the extension of this freedom of speech to the internet is harmful to political discourse is to ignore the principle of freedom of speech.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1079, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'freedom'.
Suggestion: freedom
...th, this is simply inevitable when such a freedom is granted to the masses. Thus, it is t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1256, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...s of his peers so that he can ensure he is not believing a lie. Although the argument claim...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1287, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'populations'' or 'population's'?
Suggestion: populations'; population's
... is even more reflective on the general populations opinion now since voting is not exclusi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, still, then, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3181.0 2235.4752809 142% => OK
No of words: 620.0 442.535393258 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13064516129 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98996985923 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7952129437 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462903225806 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1008.0 704.065955056 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.2812859385 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.24 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.72 5.21951772744 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.416560797187 0.243740707755 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113993326526 0.0831039109588 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103741216423 0.0758088955206 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241881976626 0.150359130593 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104856021672 0.0667264976115 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.