Please give me some feedback and, if possible, give me a grade out of the 1-6 scale. I typed this under a time-constraint without spellcheck.
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 and the reason on which that claim is based
Hello my edits and suggestions are below,
Some might argue that since anyone [...] quality of political discourse in this country.
This is a good opening, a sentence here transitioning us to the next paragraph will make the opening smoother.
For one, These new social media(Blogs? Articles? Missing a noun) balance the bias of traditional media that favor certain political standing. As many( who is many?) in this country have known, Fox news tends to cater to the Republicans while MSNBC appeals to the Democrats < (:) This is a bold statement, take the idea of this sentence and move it to the section after you explain how the channels gets funded, otherwise it looks like an opinion). A simple investigation into the people funding these TV channel will reveal how their stockholders are usually affliated with a certain party. For instance, Fox News is owned by Rupbert Mudoch, an strong advocate of the Republican party. Hence, there is no surprise that Fox News tends to magnify the Democrats false and cover up the Republicans' false. In the past, only commentators hired or invited by these medias can have their voice broadcast to the public. Nevertheless, things have changed now. Today, people can directly contribute to the conversation by tweeting or blogging. ( <I love this paragraph! I want to keep reading on this topic.)
In addition to balancing the oligopoly of traditional media, these diverse voices have also diversified the American political discourse which is often dominated by only two parties-the Republicans and the Democrats. Though these parties haave great think tanks and experts, no one is omniscient. These voices online have filled up the gaps in which these traditional media overlooked or are instructed to keep silence. Traditional media tends to categorize issues into a dichotomy of black or white. ( I separated this paragraphIf this paragraph is going to be combined with below, please end the paragraph relating back to your opening. You have two different topics here.)
For instance, new medias tend to cover the controversy of legalizing marijuina into( Add a comment here how this focus is aimed to change the other traditional groups viewpoints? You jump into this statement assuming we know which groups agree/disagree with marijuana use< hope that makes sense) "people abusing their freedom to smoke drugs" and "banning it will help reduce the impact of health and finance to our future generations". However, people's comments online opened up a new discussion into this topic. Some argued that maintaining the illegal status of recreational marijuina will only perpetuate the vicious cycle of police biasing against African Americans. In addition, some also raises the issue that legalizing it will increase the state revenue from tax. Others also noted some scientific journals aruging that marijuaina have a lesser impact on health than tobacco or alcohol does. While, these opinions online may have their flaws, they give the public different perspective to evaluate the issue and to make the most informed decision possible.
On top of the diverse voices that blogosphere and social media provide, they often report news faster than traditional media. Take the recent police abuse in South Caroline for example. The witness was able to record the live action of an police officer shooting at a unarmed African American male running away from the police. It was (not) until he posted this video online that bigger media such as CNN start reporting on this issue. Traditionally, the news media would have to hear it from someone and send a reported or journalist to gather the information. However, this lengthy process may cause some important information to be lost or intentionally hidden. For instance, in the video, we clearly see that the victim was unarmed and running away from the officer. This contradicts the officer's statement that he felt threatened because the victim robbed him of his taser. In short, this is one example of how modern social media actually enhance the quality of news report.
My suggestions:)
Wow! You have some great examples, and great writing here. I would give you a 4.5, but let me tell you why, you touch on too many complex topics. You start with the political parties, the example of legalizing, and then end it with media and police brutality. Although your writing is superb, you touch on too many strong/deep topics briefly. Which makes the essay just a great amount of details and facts standing alone. If you are going to touch on all those topics please keep leading us back to your thesis and your first paragraph. Social media (in general) and your topic is vast. You do not have to re-write, I would suggest just re-organize the paragraphs. This can lead and transition us to your main topic and point. Good luck!
