New stories on TV and in Newspapers are often accompanied by pictures.
Some people say that these pictures are more effective than words.
What is you opinion about this?
News presentation has been changing drastically, as a result, of the competition in the news industry. Nowadays, news stories on televisions or in newspapers generally contain visuals. Due to this, several people anticipate that these presented photos are the ultimate way to showcase the news effectively. What could be the appropriate idea of providing news? Thorough scrutiny of the above will lead to an insightful response.
While it is convenient to adopt one side other the other, I prefer to present a balanced ergo objective assessment. In my opinion, visuals definitely make an impact on the viewer's opinion in many ways. However, it is equally crucial to read the story behind the scene to obtain credible data. The subsequent two paragraphs will detail both aspects extensively.
First and foremost, visuals shown on televisions or in newsletters are considered as proof of the incident happened. These pictures not only give an overall understanding of any news but also save the time of an over-occupied work professional, who does not have time to read the complete article thoroughly. For Example, a survey conducted by Mumbai Mirror says that people have started being more interested in reading news because of the inclusion of photos in the news articles.
On the contrary, one could misinterpret the content of the news by viewing the pictures on TV or in the newspapers. Additionally, written content gives accurate information to an individual before coming to any conclusion about the presented news. In support of the above, there are myriad of fake news rumoured because of misunderstandings of the visuals and by not reading the actual content.
Keeping all the above-mentioned facts in mind, getting a sense of any news and being more involved in it by pictures are evident. However, components such as legitimate content and consequences of misinterpreting the visuals are well worthy of equivalent consideration. To conclude, as is most of the things in life, this matter has two sides. Fortunately, in this case, both of them are constructive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 173, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...isuals definitely make an impact on the viewers opinion in many ways. However, it is eq...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, well, while, for example, such as, as a result, in my opinion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => 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: 1754.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 334.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25149700599 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15419978741 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586826347305 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 506.74238477 112% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.4523889818 49.4020404114 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.3157894737 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5789473684 20.7667163134 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94736842105 7.06120827912 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 3.4128256513 322% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127282779221 0.244688304435 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0371832420217 0.084324248473 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330772064765 0.0667982634062 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0670443637376 0.151304729494 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0147724964074 0.056905535591 26% => 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: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.