Are famous people treated unfairly by the media? Should they be given more privacy, or is the price of their fame an invastion into their private life?
It is evident the nature of media has rapidly evolved over the past few years, reshaping the way media companies do business. However, the fact that celebrities’ privacy is at stake is just one of many inevitable products of fame that have been long acknowledged.
First, unlike one single media channel, the pool of media should be considered reasonably fair as many channels are simultaneously participating to offer varying or even contradicting opinions. In fact, the increased availability of media channels has reached the point where information efficiency is achieved. The implication of this is that famous
people should be expecting even more fairness treatment now and down the road. Also of importance is the fact that any libel or slander against famous people are done by the media can be easily brought to trial, resulting in significant liabilities for the media. This, thereby, acts as a disincentive for media corporations from failing to meet the industry standards on privacy issue, especially when it involves celebrities.
It should be acknowledged that fame and media attention are tied to one another. Celebrities should expect a reasonable level of intrusion upon seclusion and biases from the media since those are recognized products of fame. This suggests that the media and celebrities share the responsibility on privacy issue rather than attributing all the blames to the media. In fact, with an increase in public exposure, the responsibility held by public figures should be set even higher than otherwise. Thus, famous ones should not be
infuriated simply because the media is doing its regular job.
In conclusion, famous people are treated fairly by the press since it is getting increasingly harder for the media to cross the line nowadays. It is safe to say acknowledging the celebrities’ higher privacy responsibility associated with fame is key to finding the common ground between the media and celebrities on this subject matter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 80, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...irness treatment now and down the road. Also of importance is the fact that any libe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, thus, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 13.1623246493 167% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1672.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 315.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30793650794 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03269494001 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 532.8 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.1543237553 49.4020404114 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.428571429 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06120827912 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.38176352705 137% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253656295149 0.244688304435 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0967782876582 0.084324248473 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0413931868071 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125901983107 0.151304729494 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0579900908379 0.056905535591 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 78.4519038076 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.