Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
While scandals vary greatly in the magnitude of uproar, today’s news discusses a scandal of extreme importance. Presidential impeachment has only occurred twice historically, which may change to soon include President Donald Trump to the list. The scandal he created in foreign affairs and Russian alliances has exploded into a dramatic show which rarely addresses the original issue. News channels act as a dramatic catalyst, causing a reaction which hides the true issue and draws attention to the wrong side.
That being said, there is some truth behind the claim as scandals do bring awareness to a larger audience than a typical speaker would. When addressing some issues over dramatization is a productive technique, child safety for example. A scandal involving child safety at a school results in the audience thinking of their own children and loved ones, which is an effective method of communication. However, most scandals do not use this method productively and would be effectively communicated as a speech.
Scandals are blown out of proportion when media covers the issue. The claim assumes the attention of the audience will focus on problems that could not be presented by a speaker. This is a stretch as the media coverage of scandals is specific to one event and often distracts the audience from the moral violation that occurred. To illustrate, Bill Clinton was impeached for his affairs which resulted in sexual assault and lying under the oath. During this scandal, the media released information on the mistresses involved. However, they did not have any impact on the scandal as the crime was because of Bill Clinton and his authority and honesty. Therefore, this scandal did not productively use the audience’s attention to focus on problems outside the capabilities of a reformer.
Additionally, the ways that scandals achieve an audience’s attention are not conducted in an effective manner. The media coverage becomes so extreme that the unimportant details are exposed. For example, when an employee is dismissed for misuse of a company credit card their attitude and diligence is also discussed. These factors, while important conversations during an annual review, have no grounds to diminish the crime committed. These conversations are then gossip, an unproductive and often untrue method of communication. Consequently, scandals are in fact unproductive and have little value.
Finally, because scandals can vary so dramatically in their importance, each situation must be addressed and considered individually. Who was affected by this scandal and to what effect? If the crime goes unpunished, what implications may this have in the future? What laws or rules were broken and what was the intent of the situation? All these questions must be answered when considering the importance of a scandal.
In conclusion, scandals are not often classified as useful method of communication because of the dramatic exaggeration involved. A well-respected speaker or reformer may use effective communication tools and achieve the same outcome in a much more productive way. The claim addressing scandals as useful must be reconsidered with all contributing factors and viewpoints.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 93, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an effective manner" with adverb for "effective"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ence's attention are not conducted in an effective manner. The media coverage becomes so extreme ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2747.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 503.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46123260437 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09821675695 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520874751491 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 858.6 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.5805166545 60.3974514979 46% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 94.724137931 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3448275862 23.4991977007 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1724137931 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => 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 : 24.0 5.13820224719 467% => 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: 0.25119994852 0.243740707755 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628744058936 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642679382157 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123427828301 0.150359130593 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.074150093511 0.0667264976115 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.09 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 100.480337079 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => 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.