Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Scandals Are Useful Because They Focus Our Attention On Problems In Ways That No Speaker Or Reformer Ever Could. - With Free Essay Review
ďWrite a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.Ē
Scandals sometimes can catch publicís attention, and shed light on some issues that may be controversial and worth attention. However, I disagree with the statement that scandals can focus peopleís attention on problems in ways that no speaker and reformer ever could, because it is possible that some speakers and reformers can focus publicís attention effectively just like scandals do, and scandals may not always focus publicís attention in a useful way.
To begin with, I agree that under some circumstances scandals can focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Scandals sometimes make people curious, and encourage the public to look for the whole story of an issue. Scandals can also raise pressure on governments, and force them to address certain problems. In addition, scandals can direct publicís attention to issues that some people are trying to dissemble or unwilling to reveal. For instance, especially in a society ruled by autocracy, or where the public does not have the right to speak freely, scandals can direct publicís attention on problems that people are not allowed to discuss in public, and when it is risky for any speaker to speak in public. It is possible that scandals can place pressure on the government, and then the issue can be addressed in order to placate the public. In this case, scandals are useful since it directs publicís attention on problems that no speaker or reformer ever could.
However, this is not always the case. In domestic countries such as the US, where people have the right to speak freely, it is possible that some speakers or reformers can focus our attention on problems in ways that scandals can. For instance, Martin Luther King succeeded in focusing the publicís attention on the issue of segregation, and unequal right for black people. He gave speeches in public, and advocated people to protest against segregation. Finally, he successfully directed peopleís attention on segregation, and forced that country to amend the unjustifiable laws. Therefore, I think it is possible that some outstanding reformers and speaker can focus peopleís attention in a society where people have right to speak.
In addition, even although scandals may focus publicís attention on some problems, it is not always useful. Sometimes, scandals tend to focus on some trivial or unrelated issues about celebrities in ways that can mislead the public. For instance, we have heard many sexual scandals about many politicians, in some cases, these politicians may be competent in public office and good leaders, but people may start to distrust them or deny their abilities because of their misbehaviors in their personal life. In addition, we may hear some scandals like some politicians are alcoholic or rude to their friends, and these scandals can tarnish their images, and exaggerate the problems, which can possibly mislead the public, and ignore their contributions and talents. In this case, scandals are not always useful.
Overall, I think under some circumstances, scandals can focus our attention on problems no speaker or reformer can. However, it is not absolute. I disagree with the statement that scandals can focus peopleís attention on problems in ways that no speaker and reformer ever could. Further, scandals may not always useful.
The basic argument here, as articulated in your first paragraph, is reasonable enough, although you are probably not quite saying what you mean. Note that the first sentence of your second paragraph ("To begin with ...") contradicts the second sentence of the first ("However, I disagree ..."). Presumably, you mean, then, that some scandals can do what is claimed of them in the prompt, and some, perhaps most, cannot, and of course that would be a reasonable argument.
Your second paragraph seems a bit strange to me. You start off talking about circumstances in general and end up talking about authoritarian states. You seem to be searching about for a bit at the beginning of the paragraph hoping to hit on a circumstance that would make the bit in the prompt about the implied inefficacy of speakers or reformers intelligible. You hit on a solution with your reference to "a society ruled by autocracy." It may well be that speakers or reformers cannot focus people's attention in places where it is risky to speak out, but since scandal's depend on widespread reporting of certain actions or behaviors, it is hard to imagine scandals being more likely vehicles of reform in such societies. If there is no free speech, there is usually no free press, and so no scandal (unless it be a preapproved one). I think, in short, the beginning of the paragraph was more promising: scandals appeal to our curiosity; they satisfy our baser desires to peer into the misfortune or miscalculations of others.
The prompt, it seems to me, is concerned with how the attention of the public can be seized, but you seem to be avoiding that concern in looking at the difference between authoritarian and democratic countries (or however else you might one to name the distinction, but presumably "domestic" is not one of the right words). In saying that, I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong with the Martin Luther King example, but it is important to keep in mind than an example is just an example, and as such tends to illustrate a point rather than explain it. You prove with one example that there can be successful reformers, but that doesn't really amount to analysing the issue; it doesn't amount to thinking about why reformers might have difficulty directing people's attention to problems, for instance.