This paper was written about the experiences that I had with online deliberation on the website, The National Review. This website posts articles that have a bit of a republican bias to them and I am a democrat, so I felt this would be a good choice, seeing as I had the potential to have great deliberation with some people who disagreed with me. I hope you enjoy.
Online Deliberation
I chose to comment on an article on the topic of Paul Ryan’s new budget that he has proposed. It talks about the reception that both the liberals and the conservatives gave to this and goes a little into the details of the proposed budget. I found this article to be a good choice to comment on because of the fact that it was written on a proposal made by a republican and posted on a republican news site, The National Review. I thought this would be a good choice due to my predominantly democratic views. I figured that this would bring about quality deliberation between both democrats and republicans who had read my comment.
Much to my dismay, I was unable to stir up any deliberation at all. I read some of the other comments that had been written about the article and learned some things that I could have done in writing my comment that would have caused deliberation. First, I realized that I simply stated an opinion with no factual backings. I didn’t use any sort of source or quote to back up my statements and, therefore, people most likely felt as though I either didn’t know what I was talking about or was just making a small interjection that didn’t possess any substance that could be debated.
Second, I discovered that I didn’t give the readers much to deliberate on. I merely presented my opinion and nothing else which leaves the potential commenter with the options of agree or disagree and nothing in between. If I had provided some facts or written a little bit more about my opinion that delved into some specifics regarding the Ryan budget, then commenters may have been more inclined to respond to my comment.
Finally, I realized that the language I was using wasn’t sensational enough. Some of the other quotes used language that could easily stir people up and cause them to comment and either fervently agree or disagree. The language that I am referring to uses phrases such as “worst ever” or “the greatest in history”. These comments made for quality deliberation, in which the participants were having a long and productive conversation regarding the details of a specific section or two of the Ryan budget. If I had sensationalized my language, enough emotion may have been stirred in order to generate a good amount of commenters and ultimately begin a fruitful deliberation.
Online Deliberation
I chose to comment on an article on the topic of Paul Ryan’s new budget that he has proposed. It talks about the reception that both the liberals and the conservatives gave to this and goes a little into the details of the proposed budget. I found this article to be a good choice to comment on because of the fact that it was written on a proposal made by a republican and posted on a republican news site, The National Review. I thought this would be a good choice due to my predominantly democratic views. I figured that this would bring about quality deliberation between both democrats and republicans who had read my comment.
Much to my dismay, I was unable to stir up any deliberation at all. I read some of the other comments that had been written about the article and learned some things that I could have done in writing my comment that would have caused deliberation. First, I realized that I simply stated an opinion with no factual backings. I didn’t use any sort of source or quote to back up my statements and, therefore, people most likely felt as though I either didn’t know what I was talking about or was just making a small interjection that didn’t possess any substance that could be debated.
Second, I discovered that I didn’t give the readers much to deliberate on. I merely presented my opinion and nothing else which leaves the potential commenter with the options of agree or disagree and nothing in between. If I had provided some facts or written a little bit more about my opinion that delved into some specifics regarding the Ryan budget, then commenters may have been more inclined to respond to my comment.
Finally, I realized that the language I was using wasn’t sensational enough. Some of the other quotes used language that could easily stir people up and cause them to comment and either fervently agree or disagree. The language that I am referring to uses phrases such as “worst ever” or “the greatest in history”. These comments made for quality deliberation, in which the participants were having a long and productive conversation regarding the details of a specific section or two of the Ryan budget. If I had sensationalized my language, enough emotion may have been stirred in order to generate a good amount of commenters and ultimately begin a fruitful deliberation.
RSS Feed