Countering, developing a different way of thinking to "nullify"or to add constructive criticism writing, is not very prevalent in The Bleacher Report. This is because countering is not as useful as forwarding for this specific type of blog. There is no need for constructive criticism in sports blog posts. Thus, there is no real need for countering.
This doesn't stop the readers of The Bleacher Report from a quasi-countering. They comment on the post and make sure that their opinion is heard. This isn't necessarily countering because they provide no insight on their opinion; they just state it. However, they share their thoughts and opinions in a semi-organized way that ev their own thoughts via a public website. In this form of kind-of-countering, the only things that are gained are the other readers' opinions. I learn the what the opinions are, not why they have those opinions or how they came upon them. If they shared why and how they came upon their own opinions, they would provide a level of outside understanding of that opinion, which would evoke more opinions from the blog. In turn, coming closer to an actual Harris definition of countering.
i found my experience with Business Insider to be vey similar. People post arguments against the articles but very rarely do I see anything that tries to further the conversation by looking at a different angle. Good insight
ReplyDelete