All of these comments come from the article posted by the Washington Post.
This first commenter, Bass1, can be seen as reasonable. This commenter is wish in that he wishes the right call was made. I feel this commenter holds the valuable of being reasonable. He disagrees with the call yet he can see why it was made. Many people refuse to see both sides, only claiming there was one right call, but as he said, even if they ran the ball it could have been stopped.. He admits that the play was a bad call but he tells how he could see why the play call made sense.
I found the commenter Pro-lifeForALL to be reasonable as well. He starts off with saying that it was not guaranteed that Lynch would have scored. He seems to be expressing fear the play wouldn't have worked either way. I can tell from this commenters username that he/she is prolife. Not that prolife has much of a relationship to football. I can tell this commenter is reasonable as he give more credit to the Patriots rather than blame to the Seahawks.
This commenter is very angry and is trying to stir the pot. He starts off with a irrelevant fact in that Pete Carroll is a 9/11 truther. True or not that is irrelevant to the game or the play. This comment shows this person does not have much in terms of values. While it is hard to tell if he is trolling or not he does seem to have his name as his username. But this could be a fake name. While this commenter is most likely a troll he makes no valid points. This commenter has no creditability as all he does is call Pete Carroll a moron. If it is his real name then he would be creditable but he still makes no valid points or adds anything to the discussion with his comment.
Reflection:
Upon reading the blog posts on comments from Chloe and Annelise. Both of them provided commenters that seemed very reliable on their respective subjects. Through using relevant diction to having background info on the subject, I agreed that their commenters were reliable. I really liked how Annelise pointed out the red flags for her unreliable commenters right of the bat. I hadn't even thought that a profile picture could potentially make a commenter unreliable but I agreed with her that in that case it did.
I am a huge Seahawks fan being from Seattle so this post really interested me. I was too very upset with the outcome (last 20 seconds) of the Super Bowl and definitely was biased until reading this post. I learned from your two credible sources that had Lynch ran the ball he still might not have scored, and I think this is a very valid point. However, I think the controversy of this event is more the "defaltegate" issue than the play that lost the Seahawks the Super Bowl. This issue actually went to court, and Tom Brady was suspended and he and the Patriots incurred huge fines.
ReplyDeleteI especially liked your focus on evaluating bias in the comments. While this is an event pretty open to overt bias, and noone hides their allegiances, it is good to explore the dimensions of bias, and finding the line between legitimate commentary and blind support for a team.
ReplyDeleteIt's something I hadn't thought about yet, and I fear I'm still prone to characterizing one side as a good/evil paradigm instead of factual and nonfactual. It's a significant line to draw, and it's one that I think you explored well while evaluating some of the comments.