We should consider scandals as a type of content that is filled with notorious information about someone who’s either of the public interest or important to the livelihood of the population. The author stated that scandals are useful because it has the nature to draw an excessive amount of attention from the public, such as generating discussions or debates, in a way that no speaker could. While I agree with the author that scandals are powerful in influencing people and the society, I would not consider this type of content as useful because of its lack of educational value, unbalanced story-telling methods, and irreversible damage to targeted victims.
First of all, scandals are often contributing no social value to society. The reason why scandals are so effective and successful is that their content. People love to hear stories that are sensational and exceptional. Media likes to cover such stories because they generate sales and thus promote media companies’ revenue. But the sensation caused by scandals serves no beneficial purpose to the society, except ill-intentions and negative human emotions. Scandals are often about the wrongdoings and personal lives of celebrities or people of power. Of course, they are of public interest, but they are merely a debate or an anecdote to mention on the dinner table. Scandals do not deserve the attention that they have received in reality because they do not bring in any educational effect on society.
Secondly, one of the many reasons why scandals get disseminated effectively is because of the biased report methods. Media often shapes the narrative to the most extreme as they could to generate audience’s reactions. In general, these reactions are anger, disgust, and upset. These negative emotions thus can be used as the secondary coverage and reinforce the original story content. The more coverage on scandals would cause fewer coverages on other types of news that really deserve the public attention, such as climate change, human rights, and economy,
Scandals often leave trauma to the story subjects. Scandals generated the public’s negative emotions in response to story subjects. In the era of the Internet, it is much easier to locate the story subjects and attack them personally. For example, people can log in to social media and direct message the story subjects to express their anger. The most extreme case perhaps is to locate the story subjects in real life and cause them inconvenience. These effects of scandals can result in physical and psychological damage to people who were involved in the scandal. The consequence of scandals could threaten their personal safety and psychological trauma. Therefore, scandals should not be considered as a useful tool since they would victimize the people of the stories.
In sum, I partially disagree with the author that scandals are useful because of the sensations they could cause. But I have to admit that scandals are a powerful content that could easily elicit people’s attention and emotions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 565, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...imate change, human rights, and economy, Scandals often leave trauma to the story...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, in general, of course, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2580.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 489.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27607361963 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84538851423 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480572597137 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.3467080969 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.2 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.56 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.08 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 5.13820224719 370% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189146071327 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0584162166879 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0536889229486 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128945844357 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480223076945 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 100.480337079 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.