<p>Please tell me what I can improve for this humble essay of mine. I really appreciate it.</p>
<p>Question: Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?
Essay:</p>
<p>Nowadays, with the ubiquity of TV and TV shows, there is a huge amount of public interest in a new, yet familiar, reality shows - those that reflect the image of people themselves in real life. It can be argued, however, that these shows may not depict reality, and can at times prove to be misleading. An overview of the following examples clarifies this point.</p>
<pre><code> In her novel about her work in the Yucatan Peninsula, Elizabeth Butler portrays a derisive image of an elegantly groomed young woman who had been sent by a popular magazine to write a short article on her work. From time to time, the reporter, while embracing the belief she got from TV that ‘archeologists find treasure each day before breakfast’, inquired about the glory of archeology, only to be let down by the genuinely menial work Elizabeth described. In particular, Elizabeth talked about dirt and potsherds when she wanted to hear about romance and adventure. The reporter expected tales of tombs, gold and glory, but received stories about heat, disease, and insect bites instead. Elizabeth went on to assert: ‘Picture postcards never show the bugs. Postcards never show the heat’, and to top it all off, when the reporter, expecting Elizabeth to ‘talk about the excitement of discovery, the thrill of uncovering lost civilization’, asked her why, if conditions were as horrible as described, she would go on another dig, Elizabeth responded in a facetious manner: ‘Because I’m crazy’. Thus, this anecdote clearly demonstrates how reality TV show, one that the reported was misled by and is trying to make, belies its origin - reality, and how much trouble it has put her into.
Consider another example, a high school newspaper article, in which its author John Robert reveals a fundamental flaw in reality TV shows, that is, their so-called ‘reality’ is inaccurate and distorted. His first point is concerned about the show ‘Happy Family’, where two couples trade rooms and redecorate for each other. The catch is, according to John, interior designers help them. He goes on to question: ‘Would either couple hire someone who thinks it’s a great idea to swathe a room in hundreds of yards of muslin, or to adhere 5,000 plastic flowers as mural in a bathroom?’ John then discusses another reality show, Survivor, which portrays an image of ‘people who haven’t showered or done their laundry in weeks scavenging for food and competing in ridiculous physical challenges’. The truth is, however, far from what is shown: the contestants spend most of their time, when not on a Reality TV show, driving to the Burger Barn and getting exercise only when the remote goes missing. In his conclusion, John once again emphasizes: ‘What’s real about that?’ Thus his article fortifies the idea that reality TV shows have gone astray from their path, and are therefore harmful to viewers.
In conclusion, after thorough analysis of Elizabeth Butler and John Robert's works, one can be convinced that reality TV shows can be harmful and duplicitous. As much as they may be applealing, one cannot use them as a means of understanding reality.
</code></pre>
<hr>
<p>The grammar is fine, I belieave. But is there any problem with the content. I think these 2 are actually familiar to SAT takers. The first one in from a passage in a SAT test <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1231331-critical-reading-question.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1231331-critical-reading-question.html</a>
And the second one is a passage in chapter 1 of '501 critical reading'.
Since I have done these 2 recently, I decided that I might as well use them to my advantage. I don't know anything about media at all >.<</p>