It is more important to read or watch news presented by people whose views are different from your own than it is to read or watch news presented by those whose views are similar to your own.
Information plays a huge part in people's lives today. For some, it is tempting to choose news outlets that have the same viewpoints as them. However, I personally believe that collecting news from channels whose views are different from my own is more beneficial as it diversifies our viewpoint and helps us challenge our own thinking.
To begin with, ingesting news from sources whose opinions are in contrast with out own diversifies our own views. By learning information from several standpoints, we can have a more throughout outlook on the situation at hand, which helps us come up with better ideas and solutions. For instance, a government wants to reduce the electricity cost as it is currently too expensive for widespread use throughout the coutry. In order to do so, the farmland around a major factory has to be repurposed to expand the facility. At first, some normal household may agree with this approach as their electricity bill is going to be reduced greatly. However, upon hearing the news from another source, which states that this would greatly damage the soil and the ecosystem of the surrounding area, they gain a better view of the situation and can come up with a better solution not sacrificing the farmlands. Moreover, by having a clearer view of the circumstance, we can consider our opinion more accurately, coming to a better understanding of our own viewpoint that way.
Secondly, having several sources of news with different ideologies helps us learn to challenge our own thinking. By constantly taking in information that is in direct contrast to our views, we can enhance our critical thinking skills, deciding on the authenticity as well as the validity of this intake of knowledge. More specifically, it helps us learn to gather information more vigilantly, avoiding any amount of inaccurate data. Furthermore, by challenging our own viewpoint, we can come to a change for the better, adhering our stance to the one more suitable and appropriate. As an example, a student sets his mind to only study for a bachelor's degree in university. However, the current circumstances in the field of his interest suggests that acquiring a master's degree would greatly boost the probability of him encountering a better job offer. Consequently, he decides to change his mind and study for a master's degree as it is more appropriate for his situation.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that approaching news channels whose views are different from our own is more beneficial as it broadens our thinking and helps us constantly test our viewpoints for the better.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-17 | Mitra-T | 76 | view |
| 2023-04-17 | Hossein2000 | 90 | view |
| 2023-04-10 | KimiaKermanshahian | 80 | view |
| 2023-03-20 | redark777 | 90 | view |
| 2023-01-16 | janfaisal | 73 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 75, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
... sources whose opinions are in contrast with out own diversifies our own views. By learn...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, as to, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 43.0788530466 116% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2173.0 1977.66487455 110% => OK
No of words: 428.0 407.700716846 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07710280374 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98522707775 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 212.727598566 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495327102804 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 671.4 618.680645161 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7661365211 48.9658058833 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.722222222 100.406767564 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7777777778 20.6045352989 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.77777777778 5.45110844103 179% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18396364414 0.236089414692 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0652871116027 0.076458572812 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0767061261861 0.0737576698707 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157816490468 0.150856017488 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647203701339 0.0645574589148 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 86.8835125448 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 75, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
... sources whose opinions are in contrast with out own diversifies our own views. By learn...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, as to, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 43.0788530466 116% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2173.0 1977.66487455 110% => OK
No of words: 428.0 407.700716846 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07710280374 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98522707775 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 212.727598566 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495327102804 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 671.4 618.680645161 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7661365211 48.9658058833 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.722222222 100.406767564 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7777777778 20.6045352989 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.77777777778 5.45110844103 179% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18396364414 0.236089414692 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0652871116027 0.076458572812 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0767061261861 0.0737576698707 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157816490468 0.150856017488 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647203701339 0.0645574589148 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 86.8835125448 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.