Honestly, most people would avoid the comments at all costs after they read an article. Common thought is that the comments section is a void of bad grammar and radical opinions. What people don't realize that within the void, there are a few comments that were actually thought through and can even enlighten those who read them. As a continuation to the
"My Controversy" post, I'll be looking through the comments section of a similar article by
NBC News.
First, the credible comments.
This commenter is clearly distressed about the FDA's approval of this drug due to her disbelief. Not only that, but from her own personal experience, her opinion of OxyContin is negative. She seems to value others' wellbeing and health (also shown in the last paragraph), and therefore does not want this drug to be distributed to children. No matter how strong her opinion is, she still seems credible. She can speak from experience and does not call out anyone or call anyone names. She has experienced addiction from both herself and her friends.

On the other side of the spectrum, I can see that this commenter has both a wish that parents would agree with this drug's approval. This is because she invalidates the other parents' experiences by saying "you have no idea". She is definitely agreeing with the FDA's decision because she saw her friend's child live his last part of life in pain because he did not have any drug available like OxyContin. This commenter values the comfort and quality of life within patients. She comes across as credible because she, again, has her own personal experience to back up her validity.
Now, the not-so-credible:
From this comment, we can tell that this person has a fear of big companies working with the government, as he shows a distrust for the FDA working as a "prostitute" for the pharmaceutical companies. From this distrust, he does not agree with the approval of OxyContin not for this children's sake, but the health insurers. He values the integrity of the government and big companies that actually work for their costumers, not just a profit. He doesn't look credible because he goes off on a tangent about a conspiracy theory first thing. The rest of the comment doesn't have much to do with the fact that the drug is for children, but he seems to be using this comment as a way to spread anti-government propaganda.

This commenter doesn't really have much to offer with his post. He expresses a negativity toward American culture, and even seems afraid of what it has become. I believe that he is not only against the FDA in this issue, but is against the culture around diseases in America. This is due to his sarcastic comment about America and what they think about medication and disease. This commenter is clearly not credible in a few ways. He does not have very good grammar, he includes an immature joke (his "sarcasm detector") in a serious news article, and finally he doesn't really add anything to the conversation, and is instead just sharing an opinion with no real thought behind it.
Reflection:
After reading some of my classmates' thoughts on their comments, I have learned a few things. First, from reading
Chingiz' post, I can see a different style of writing, one with detail and yet is still enjoyable to read. Next, I saw through
Hannah's post a new way to neatly organize my answers within my posts and showed me how to stay brief yet eloquent in my answers.
Overall, I tend to agree with my classmate's reasoning about their controversy's comments. Reading their blogs also showed me that every subject, no matter if its science or pop culture, will have both good and bad comments. Due to this fact, we should definitely be careful of what comments we source because even though a comment on a scientific finding may look reasonable, it may end up less credible than what it seems.