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 examine your own position on the statement. Explore the extent to which you either agree or disagree with it, and support your reasoning with evidence and/or examples. Be sure to reflect on ways in which the statement might or might not be true, and how this informs your thinking on the subject.
Because of Facebook, Twitter, and the like, the online “blogosphere” and social media have grown exponentially in size. This has given people of all backgrounds the opportunity to share their opinions, regardless of how well-informed or how active in politics they are. Ironically, and at the same time, it has weakened the quality of political coverage on several media platforms, e.g. television, newspaper, for several reasons.
First and foremost, the quality has weakened because anyone, and especially those not particularly well-informed, can post their opinion. Using any platform, an individual at any time of the day—and any day of the week—can post their thoughts in response to any national tragedy or even the most mundane news story, Jane Doe may respond by saying that she believes that Democrats conspired against the Republicans in the most recent election. Her colleagues Abraham Smith might state the opposite. Both may be biased and based in inaccurate facts, thus obscuring the truth. These individuals make statements that are wrong or flat-out counterfactual—and this is largely because they weren’t well-informed. Social media gives them the platform to share their opinion with the entire world rather than just their immediate cohort and thus obfuscates political dialogue from actual well-considered thinking.
In addition, the most politically active individuals are the ones with the largest voices and whose opinions are most likely to be read. This, in effect, shuts out opinions from people with a range of other opinions. Jane Doe may not just be uninformed; she may also be an active conspiracist. She may write daily about how Donald Trump is “Making America Great Again” because he is isolating the country from its allies—and she writes at least one blog post about this political opinion everyday. Using her own blog, she has become well-known on the “online’ blogosphere. Are individuals from Latino, Jewish, African-American, or Catholic communities heard? The mothers or fathers of these backgrounds are busy caring for their children or staying afloat. Being as politically active as Jane Doe is not an option for them, though they may be more politically informed. As a result, only Jane Doe’s opinion is heard, thus obfuscating political dialogue.
Finally, social media unintentionally highlights posts of particular people, which, consequentially, blinkers a person’s access to all different opinions. Facebook is a prime example of this: It is well-known for having a person’s feed filled with only the people that that person follows. As a result, this person gets access to, perhaps, 10 to 15 people’s posts everyday; their 500 other friends are ignored. This person does not get as much political coverage as possible and, yet again, obfuscates political coverage.
The online blogosphere unfortunately has obfuscated political coverage. People with poorly-informed opinions and those most active, not to mention social media that highlights only those that a person “follows,” have led to a political dialogue whose quality is not as cogent as it used to, or should, be. That said, some might say that the online blogosphere has opened up political dialogue. New names, like Jane Doe from rural Pennsylvania, can clairvoyantly post their thoughts. Because of their rural location, they otherwise would not reach individuals from California and share their political opinions. These individuals now have more political power than they’ve ever had in previous decades. While this is a fair claim, their actions indicate that, instead of adding to political dialogue, they are flooding with negative consequences. Instead of sharing the political platform, they are subsuming it as their own spaces and blocking other individuals from sharing. Ironically, the individuals who did not have a voice are now using it to disenfranchise others. Perhaps the online blogosphere needs to be better monitored so that all individuals can share their thoughts equally and equitably.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 499, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
... blog post about this political opinion everyday. Using her own blog, she has become wel...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 380, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
..., perhaps, 10 to 15 people's posts everyday; their 500 other friends are ignored. T...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 215, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...s only those that a person 'follows,' have led to a political dialogue whose...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, e.g., finally, first, if, may, so, thus, well, while, at least, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 33.0505617978 182% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3484.0 2235.4752809 156% => OK
No of words: 626.0 442.535393258 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.56549520767 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00199880112 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2542676815 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 317.0 215.323595506 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506389776358 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1091.7 704.065955056 155% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.0683153468 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.875 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5625 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.9375 5.21951772744 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.83258426966 228% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289384610796 0.243740707755 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0865014495331 0.0831039109588 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0651523863758 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189093049548 0.150359130593 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0550635904185 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 100.480337079 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.