Claim: The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.
Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably decline.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
Social media has impacted our lives in many ways, and the author makes a good point by stating that it has negatively impacted political discourse by weakening its quality. Because we are constantly interacting via social media, whether that be through Facebook posts, YouTube videos, or Instagram photos, we are also sharing our political opinions. As a result, all characters in a democracy now have a voice, with individuals stating their opinions either explicitly or implicitly on any of the aforementioned platforms. It may seem that, because individuals who are uneducated are sharing their opinions on topics of political interest, social media has weakened the quality of political discourse. However, by giving those same individuals a voice, social media has increased its quality.
Social media gives politicians access to new ideas, insights, and judgments because of a much broader and more diverse range of voices. Politicians often make their judgments according to their political party's affiliation or from their own backgrounds. This may silo their thinking and prevent exposure to the "others." With social media, we hear from the student who graduated from medical school and is struggling to find work, a father of four who recently lost his job and is struggling to afford health insurance, and even from me, who can post and share a video on YouTube speaking about my frustration with the lack of infrastructure funding in my country. Of course, some of these new ideas may be poorly argued or lack reasoning, all ideas nonetheless broaden politicians' views on any political topic. Best of all, it increases the fodder politicians have available when forming public policy, the efficacy of which reflects our political discourse.
By increasing political discussion, social media users learn how to cull the quality of news. Since individuals now constantly partake in political discussions, because they have become omnipresent on social media platforms, they are forced to learn, on their own, what said is and is not true. This constant atmosphere of discussion increases learning by example, so, while political discourse may, at the beginning, indicate poor quality, it improves as people learn more. By the time that we have a clear idea of what the issue at hand is, people have shown their better informed judgments.
We also need to consider the strength of the writer's claim. He or she bases his claim on presumptive reasoning. The author claims that social media weakens the quality of political discourse in the United States because the more easily that political opinions can be published, the more weak the standards for covering news and political topics will be. The author offers no logic behind this reasoning, instead assuming that because anyone can publish political opinions, the quality of political discourse must weaken. Perhaps if the author were to offer alternative reasoning or empirical data proving his or her claim, then his or her claim would be stronger. Therefore, before we can even discuss whether the quality of political discourse in the United States is weakening, we need strong reasoning that backs the claim.
The most important consequence of the writer's claim, however, is not the claim; it is the implications. Regardless of whether social media has weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States, its impact is here to stay. Social media has become a constantly increasing force in our lives, so it will continue to shape the quality of political discourse. Rather than focus on whether the quality of political discourse is weakening, we should focus on ways to better moderate political discussions on social media so that we only see improvements.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2023-08-11 | YASSINETURKI | 50 | view |
2023-07-04 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
2022-12-18 | p_keerthika | 50 | view |
2022-07-24 | afroza2 | 83 | view |
2022-07-24 | afroza2 | 83 | view |
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.Write a response in which you discu 66
- The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement."Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because it has spectacular natural beauty and a consistent climate. Another advantage is that housing costs 29
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which 58
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permi 89
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors:“Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satell 29
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, then, therefore, while, of course, speaking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3162.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 601.0 442.535393258 136% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2612312812 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95129289623 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84365778049 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484193011647 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 998.1 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.326211626 60.3974514979 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.75 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0416666667 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.29166666667 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.416280027133 0.243740707755 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126043309411 0.0831039109588 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104593275362 0.0758088955206 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.240811560557 0.150359130593 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.09796812176 0.0667264976115 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.