Initially, the media was unbiased and would only objectively report the events that were happening around the world to their viewers. Since then media has gradually devolved has devolved into rabble-rouser that wants to just put out stories to grab as many views or clicks as possible. The prompt here confirms this thought and suggests that no man or woman can be proclaimed to be a hero as he or her legacy would ultimately get tarnished by media scrutiny. Undoubtedly, the suggestion of the prompt is completely justified for the reasons that are detailed below paragraphs.
To begin with, media these days is more focused on getting attention to their stories. Since more views and clicks yield higher revenues. It is no longer necessary that news is important or not
or whether it is factually correct or not, it should just be spicy enough to be sold off like hot pancakes. Analyzing the current trends in the media industry the same can be easily corroborated as we find that short and attention grasping stories have increased viewership and dominate viewership whereas detailed and factual reports or thorough debates on important issues are seeing a decline in viewership and are also being phased out in favor of this format of news. Media institutions might just start making spicy stories about famous personalities to mint a few extra bucks. Although, the accuracy of such stories is another concern it matters less to the media institutions as they can later just put out a 10-second video apologizing for airing a fake story. However, permanent damage would have been done by then to the legacy of a once unknown personality.
Secondly, gone are the days when media used to be unbiased. Media by its nature covers multiple issues and various aspects of our life from trade and finance, politics to entertainment. Media institutions have aligned themselves with different entities in these sectors. It is not unheard of to find that certain reporters are receiving a payout from corporates, media personalities, and politicians. This has made the media very unbiased and they are now also insidiously promoting hidden agendas of these corporates, media personalities, and politicians. At times, when it seems favorable these very people easily push media to tarnish the legacy of people who once were considered a hero of the society for political mileage, business benefit, or to weed out the competition in the film industry as no one would hire an actor who is charged with allegations. For instance, the watergate scandal was one of the most prominent examples that show us how the can media manufacture thin lies out of the air to tarnish the image of a politician. In the watergate scandal Boris Johnsson, a war veteran who went on to become the British prime minister with the cleanest record free of any corruption charges was falsely accused in a media trial of providing contracts to the watergate construction firm without any due process and accepting bribes from them. The British prime minister had to step down and the labor party came into power. However, later on, after an investigation by government agencies, Boris Jhonson was vindicated.
In conclusion, we can say that because of our digital lives a lot of power rests in the hands of the media in shaping our opinions, and it would not shy away from tarnishing anyone's reputation for profits be it god himself.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... necessary that news is important or not or whether it is factually correct or no...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, for instance, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2841.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 569.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99297012302 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.779990827 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 305.0 215.323595506 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536028119508 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 907.2 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.0065934466 60.3974514979 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.136363636 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8636363636 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.90909090909 5.21951772744 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.210131736575 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525006808749 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0452483067431 0.0758088955206 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111832357233 0.150359130593 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0342911513608 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.