My Thoughts on Comments

In my last post, I discussed political controversy. I failed to mention possibly the most controversial method of spreading political information: the comments section of media, either social or otherwise. I took the time to find an article, "Smoking Gun in Hillary Clinton Benghazi Email," and sift through the comments. The highlights (and lowlights) are featured below.

This comment is expressing anxiety that if reelected, Hillary Clinton will proceed to allow people to die under her presidency. It also expresses that the author hopes that Hillary Clinton will not be reelected. I'd argue that the commenter believes in rightist political ideology and that Hillary Clinton should not be elected. I'm basing this thought on the author's name calling, as well as the author's desire to see an election without Clinton's name on the ballot. In addition, the author lacks credibility because he hides his name from the public, which indicates that he refuses to link his opinion with his public or professional reputation.

Similar to the first comment, this comment expresses the fear that the Clintons will allow people to die or will even kill people for selfish reasons. It would be fair to make the assumption that the author does not want Clinton in the White House. This comment clearly expresses a dislike for the Clintons in general, which could be broadened to all of political leftism in the United States. Also like the previous commenter, this author refuses to link his true name with his online footprint, which makes him less trustworthy.

This comment does not have an apparent political bias. It would appear that the author wants to share information about the lawmaking process, although this is accomplished with a fair measure of attitude. Due to the balanced nature of this comment, it is difficult to tell what the author really values. However, I think it likely that the commenter places value on education and law. The commenter came across as reasonable mostly because he seems to have researched the topic and presents his thoughts clearly, briefly, and logically.

This commenter appears to want to enlighten the public about the entire situation, and attempts to fill in the cracks of the article. For this reason, the author might be anxious that the entire truth is not being reported, and feels obligated to add an opinion. The author may value transparency within the media and the government. What strikes me as most reasonable about this comment is that the author addresses the "bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo" and creates meaning from it.

Reflection:

I learned a lot from Tom's blog post about Planned Parenthood. His commentary about how grammar and syntax impact the perception that readers have on comments was very valuable. In addition, I agreed with him in that commenters who choose to hide their names from the public are less credible than those who display their identities. As for Lauren's blog, I was mostly interested due to the topic. I don't know that much about medical marijuana or it's application to pharmaceutical research. For this reason, the comments were very interesting.