In the age of the internet, the social media is in the heyday. The power of social media affects not only the public but also the celebrities by the exposure, which are at high frequency in various fields all over the world. At the same time, it is controversial that whether the scandals is beneficial to improve the social environment. From various evidence, we can see, in order to make scandals contribute to ameliorate the social environment, this double-edged sword should be constrained within a certain range.
The quantity and quality of scandals is the important effect determining factor. In this information era, everyone suffers from excessive information, resulting in the insensibility of the general public. Therefore, the quantity and quality of the scandal are the key indicators of its effect. According to a survey conducted in China by HZNU, 70% of students are insensitive to the scandals of actors and actresses, which can be interpreted as the result of an excessive amount of scandals in the entertainment industry. However, nearly 90% of students expressed their concern about a recent corruption scandal, which is rare and impactful to the public. Additionally, overexposures cause mutual harm to the public and the celebrities. The public could become numb to that unverifiable news and celebrities suffer from the lack of privacy. Therefore, scandals are beneficial provided that the frequency and the reliability of scandals are above a certain level.
The effects of scandals, in terms of the benefit and damage it could cause, are distinct in different fields. In some fields, the scandals could produce positive effects, while in certain fields, the release of scandals could be a calamity. For instance, the Watergate event in which the president Nixon was accused of wiretapping his opponents results in the first resignation of a U.S. Presidents. The following investigation reveals a considerable number of dark side of the USA politic at that time, which greatly ameliorated the comprehensive political environment. The scandal in charity fields, however, could result in a series of negative, even life-risking consequence. In China, people’s negative impression of red cross association from a corruption scandal lasts for years. The scandal ruined the credit of the red cross association and people refuse to donate blood for the consideration that It would not be used to help people in need, causing national insufficiency of blood. Therefore, the effect of scandal largely depends on the particular fields.
Last but not least, the fake scandal published by journalists who want to gain reputation can hardly produce the positive effect. In other words, the reality of scandals is essential, since the fake scandal is often suspicious and without solid evidence. People of the information age are less credulous than their parents. In today's BBS, the scandal would be penetrated within few days by the commenters by various evidence found in the internet. Therefore, only the scandal of credibility or high possibility could exist and produce enough impact on the public in the current world.
To sum up, whether the scandal can be useful should be estimated from different aspect including its fields, quality and quantity, and truthfulness. The scandal or the exposure is an intrinsic part of achieving justice and fairness of human society in the age of information, on the condition that it is limited to a modest range.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 190, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
..., resulting in the insensibility of the general public. Therefore, the quantity and quality of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, therefore, while, for instance, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 91.0 58.6224719101 155% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2930.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 554.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28880866426 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85151570047 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01845211776 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485559566787 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 922.5 704.065955056 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 17.0 4.99550561798 340% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 14.0 4.38483146067 319% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6004655788 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.518518519 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5185185185 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.40740740741 5.21951772744 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 20.0 5.13820224719 389% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141491876556 0.243740707755 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398693735617 0.0831039109588 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0267362789552 0.0758088955206 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.082481523963 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0226863945087 0.0667264976115 34% => 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: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 100.480337079 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.