Hello Reader!
Because Planned Parenthood is always a touchy subject for people on the internet, I found it hard to find credible comments from Buzzfeed's article about the defunding of Planned Parenthood due to the unproven controversy that Planned Parenthood has been illegally selling post-abortion fetal tissue.
Many of the comments were just angry rants over how abortion is morally wrong and how everyone who supports abortions will burn in hell. Most of the other comments were angry rants about how the people who want to defund Planned Parenthood and all it's services are just stupid conservatives who can't differentiate between factual science and personal, unproven belief. However, some were relatively credible and I will explain why below! Let's take a look, shall we?
I will be answering the following questions about these commenters below...
1. Does this commenter seem to be expressing fear/anxiety about something or does s/he seem to be expressing a fantasy/wish about something? How can you tell?
2. What kinds beliefs and values do you think this commenter holds? What are you basing this on?
3a. For the 2 credible comments only: Why does this commenter come across as reasonable to you? Try and be specific and detailed here.
Credible Comments:
1. Although this commenter may first come off as angry, she closes her comment by making a compelling point that actually relates to the main focus of the article. To me, she seems to express anxiety about how states are able to defund an organization because of an accusation rather than a fact. Like she said, "there's been no investigation," so she feels as though states are abusing the controversy to quit funding a program that they just don't support for other reasons.
2. Due to her strong support for the Planned Parenthood organization and her harsh use of the word "patriots," which is often used to describe or take a shot at the conservative party, I think it is safe to assume that she is a supporter of the left wing.
3a. This comment seemed reasonable to me because she actually expressed a fear or anxiety that was relevant to the article. Additionally, she did so without expressing her opinion in radical form. Majority of the comments on this article were very, very heated.
1. This commenter seems to be expressing a more neutral stand point; he does not seem to express a real concern. While his comment is on a broader scale in relation to the article, it is still relevant.
2. Judging by his point about "redirecting to centers that don't provide abortions," I think that this commenter is not supportive of abortions or of Planned Parenthood. I think that this commenter holds more conservative values, however, his argument was relatively neutral from start to finish and he could just be independent.
3a. His comment seemed reasonable to me because he did not lash out aggressively towards any specific party or belief. He maintained a neutral stand point throughout his entire comment, even though it was short. Additionally, although he made a slight generalization about how "half the country is vehemently against" Planned Parenthood, I think that this is true enough for it to be considered a credible argument.
Non-Credible Comments:
1. This commenter, Bethany, expresses her anger and anxiety over the defunding of Planned Parenthood because of who she believes to be "a sea of clueless faces; middle-to-upper class faces who haven't a clue as to what they're shouting about." She is very passionate about her argument, however, her anger in her writing takes away the credibility of her argument.
2. I believe that this commenter is a supporter of the left wing because she seems very concerned about the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Additionally, she calls the non-supporters of Planned Parenthood, which is proven to be mostly members of the conservative party, "a sea of clueless faces; middle-to-upper class faces."
3b. Although this commenter is passionate about what she is supporting, she loses credibility in the first sentence when she makes a huge generalization that "middle-to-upper class" citizens" don't have a clue as to what they're shouting about." This insult she makes does not even have to be directed to one specific party, but rather, anyone who is not a lower-class citizen... which is just not true.
1. This commenter, Steven, poorly expresses his anger and concern that the government still allows Planned Parenthood to be funded when it provides abortions to American citizens. Although he is concerned, his comment is hard to understand and doesn't state a clear argument.
2. Judging from his comment I think it is safe to say he does not support abortions or Planned Parenthood. He seems to lean more to the right wing, however, his comment is so poorly structured its hard to tell, honestly.
3b. In his comment, Steven asks, "why are people so idiotic they cannot look at the facts?" However, in his comment, he doesn't state any facts. He also has several typos which would cause any reader to question the credibility of the comment. Overall, his comment is poorly written, and doesn't relate to the article at all.
If you would like to look at more of these comments, or view the responses to some of these comments, go to the bottom of Buzzfeed's article!
Reflection:
After reading Jenny's post on comments, I noticed that we both struggled to find credible comments in a public commenting section. This is generally because the comments are unrelated to the article, or because the comments are actually just angry rants. Similarly, in Jessi's blog, the comment section was completely open to the public so you had to dig to find credible comments. However, Jessi and Jenny were both able to find two credible comments within the not-so-credible ones. Although I did too, I was definitely surprised at the lack of credible comments on a article who's topic is so controversial.
Addie, I think that you're right in asserting that since abortion is such a hot button issue, there is a lot of passion and this translates to angry, non-credible comments. Moral objections aside, I think that the most effective way to go about commenting on something of this nature is to avoid anger and personal attacks. In my experience, the people who did this were more compelling and persuasive. I think you discovered the same thing as well.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting in the first comment how even though the commenter started off with sarcasm and really didn't offer much support you still found them credible and reasonably so. By making his main point a strong and valid one it overcame the deficiencies elsewhere. In your last comment you bring up a really good point that sometimes it doesn't even matter what the commenter's belief or point is. Occasionally their wording and grammar is so poor that regardless of what they think their credibility is lost.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting in the first comment how even though the commenter started off with sarcasm and really didn't offer much support you still found them credible and reasonably so. By making his main point a strong and valid one it overcame the deficiencies elsewhere. In your last comment you bring up a really good point that sometimes it doesn't even matter what the commenter's belief or point is. Occasionally their wording and grammar is so poor that regardless of what they think their credibility is lost.
ReplyDelete