Credible Commentors:
 |
| Screenshot from my computer - Washington Post |
Gussie is the most credible commentor I saw after surfing through a hundred or so comments. His sentences are relatively clear and easy to understand with no all capitalized word choice. This person delivers the one defined idea that there was a problem with the handling of classified data that has to be addressed no matter what the situation with the source being a presidential candidate. They are credible because they chose to only address the single point and keep within calm and concise language. Although they did not state any single belief directly, their choice to look behind the political debate and at the root of the problem suggests credibility.
 |
| Screenshot from my computer - Washington Post |
Henry leans on the lacking credibility side as he shows more emotion than reason. Although, his comment is very well thought out and the humor is well placed. His bias is very clearly present in showing his disdain to the progressive mindset which renders his comment as very one-sided. However, his credibility also comes from the intelligence to realize the media frenzy has the ability to blind others by putting their beliefs first.
Lacking Credibility:
 |
| Screenshot from my computer - Washington Post |
Emotions were definitely running high at the time of this comment. Baltic used the all capital word choice and emotional language to convey his beliefs. His credibility is ultimately lost when he concludes that punishment is necessary for those that think of themselves as above the law. While it may be correct that those who commit a crime should be reprimanded, the context shows that Baltic was ultimately driven by anger to post this comment.
 |
| Screenshot from my computer - Washington Post |
Les Wong is the typical conspiracy and all capital word user that one often sees on political threads. The information he presents is erratic and heavily driven by emotion. His beliefs are imbedded in this post, especially around the time he labels Clinton as anti-religion. The audience now knows he is a devote Christian who does not like Liberals one bit. His final characteristic is perhaps the most obvious trait of lack of credibility, the length and tone of the comment is written for the purpose of teaching those who are wrong and do not understand what he thinks is obviously right. Any actual information is this post is hidden by his strong preaching characteristics and erratic writing style.
The explanations of the comments you found are done very well. However, the biggest problem that I find myself having while reading this article is that it is not easy to scan through the blog. I find myself having to go back and reread certain parts because the paragraphs are so long. It also would have helped to have a bit of an introduction to understand what the whole blog would be about instead of being thrown straight into the content. All in all though, a very good blog! Very solid explanations that do not leave me confused, and although the format is not ideal, it is still easily readable. Happy blogging to you!
ReplyDeleteI found myself laughing a little at the lacking credibility comments. I laugh because that's how all of mine were. I couldn't find and that were actually credible. You really described them and explained them very clearly I love they way you write. Great post.
ReplyDeleteHaving accurate grammar is definitely important in good commentary. You are not taken as seriously if you cannot speak correctly. High emotions also can make sources seem very unreliable. There ideas are often stirred from personal experiences or bad events in relation to the article and not from the actual facts of the debate.
ReplyDeleteWhen you start straying from the facts, it become harder for others to take your ideas and point on the argument seriously.
I also notice the lacking of a solid introduction. I was not exactly sure what side you were going to explain first and then it just jumped right into the main point. But very well described.