Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Bill Cosby ? Bill Cosby   seen here at an August court appearance  is set for a retrial on sexual assault charges in April  after his first trial last spring ended in a hung jury. (Matt Rourke/AP)
The prosecutor in the  Bill Cosby  case asked a Pennsylvania judge to allow testimony from 19 alleged prior victims of the entertainer  whose retrial on sex assault charges is set to begin April 2.
The request is the first public indication of the shape and parameters of the prosecution case  and it represents a significant expansion of the government’s effort to portray  Cosby  as a serial predator. When  Cosby  was tried in June  prosecutors sought to include testimony from just 13 women who said they had been assaulted by the comic legend.
But it remains to be seen how this latest move by prosecutors will play out: Last year’s effort by prosecutors to introduce so-called “prior bad acts” testimony was largely unsuccessful  as the judge allowed only one of the 13 to appear at  Cosby ’s trial  which ended with a hung jury.
[What’s next for the Bill Cosby sex-assault case?]
In their request Thursday  prosecutors said that  Cosby  “has spent a lifetime entertaining audiences in front of the camera. Off camera  he has followed and  indeed mastered  a more nefarious script — a victimizing sexual script. . . . To satiate his desire  he has engaged  over the course of a lifetime  in a pattern of serial sexual abuse.”
[‘I’ve run out of clean socks and underwear’: The wait for a verdict in  Bill Cosby’s  trial turns into a test of endurance]
 Cosby  faces felony charges for allegedly drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand  a former Temple University employee  at  his  suburban Philadelphia estate in 2004.  Cosby   now 80  has denied sexually assaulting women.
[EX A]: Positive

[EX Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Yondr ? * * * France isn’t the first killjoy to quit the smartphone party. In 2015  the Canadian artist Garnet Hertz invented a cheeky device called “Phonesafe ” a masochistic lockbox designed to incarcerate smartphones for a set period of time. Hertz meant Phonesafe as a provocation  but the same idea quickly became a product. Today  you can buy similar  but mass-produced  containers on Amazon  and multi-phone lockers have become a mainstay in corporate offices and schools around the world. A McDonald’s in Singapore has even installed a locker designed to promote “family togetherness” and face-to-face conversation. If you attend a Guns n’ Roses concert or a comedy performance by Dave Chappelle  ushers will require you to lock your device in a neoprene pouch and take it into the show in that state.  The phone-locking pouch  made by a San Francisco company called Yondr   has a wide opening at the short end for inserting a smartphone. A magnetic locking mechanism  similar to those on anti-theft tags in retail stores  engages to hold it closed. After the show  this clasp is swiped across a counter-magnet  which releases the lock.  Yondr  is a surefire way to cut down on bootleg YouTube videos. In Wired  Alice Gregory recently took a tough look at the device. Gregory recounts her experience at a Chris Rock performance  where audience members waiting in the lobby had to forgo smartphone usage. The affair reduced them to “a roomful of jonesing fiends ” as she puts it. Ultimately  Gregory connects  Yondr  to a thorny question about civil liberties: the right of the people to keep and bear smartphones.
It’s an ironic conclusion  because  Yondr  is sold as a tool to provide freedom  rather than to take it away. To “Be Here Now ” as the company’s tagline puts it. It’s a promise to deliver presence—a tricky calling  to say the least. Presence has a long history in religion and philosophy  from Buddhist practices to the metaphysics of the 20th-century philosopher Martin Heidegger. Today  presence is most common in the various mindfulness trends that have overtaken individual and corporate life  in Silicon Valley in particular—collectively the critic R. John Williams has called them “technê-zen.” Cutting through the history and the rhetoric  it’s productive to think about presence in terms of attention. You’re present where you focus your attention—and you only have so much attention to pay. In the case of Chris Rock  he wants attention directed toward him  live on stage. Rock’s show might involve awkward improvisation or new material that he doesn't want circulated online. Teachers are less concerned about copyright than comedians are  but they still demand attention. I have tested Yondr’s effects on mind-wandering in classroom experiments with Dan Smilek of the University of Waterloo Vision and Attention Lab. Our research is based in part on the assumption that instructors want students to focus on the course materials  and not on Instagram  Facebook  or other distractions.  Yondr  can be a remarkably effective tool for enforcing digital abstinence in these contexts  thanks primarily to  its  portability. Rather than locking away devices inside lockers  or even inside a disused Catholic tabernacle  as I have done in a performance piece   Yondr  buffers the anxiety of being isolated from your device.
Given that the mere presence of one’s smartphone can reduce cognitive capacity   Yondr  offers a way to surf between the waves of a device’s presence and absence. You can hold it  but you can’t use it. This might be an especially important balance in classroom situations  where students see a teacher’s “phone shoebox” as an unwelcome imposition of authority. * * * Needless to say   Yondr  is still an imposition. And controlling attention requires more than just locking a device in a binge-breaking neoprene pouch. Joelle Renstrom has reported the results of her own  Yondr  experiment in a class at Boston University  where she had her 30 students lock away their devices over the course of a semester. At first  37 percent of the students found the policy annoying  but by the end of the term that figure had dropped to 14 percent. Those are promising  if tentative  results  but Renstrom’s anecdotal comments about the experiment may be more instructive than the data she collected. Renstrom describes her students’ initial experience of Yondr as “akin to caging a pet  a clear denial of freedom.” Moreover  she observes that some students left their cases unlocked as a sign of rebellion  even though they didn’t remove the phones from them. Rather than becoming “active resistors to technology ” as the scholars Christine Satchell and Paul Dourish call people who choose to ignore their devices   Yondr  users are ultimately the victims of technological disenfranchisement. When implemented as a mandatory smartphone prophylactic   Yondr  becomes a means of control  not of choice  let alone of presence.
Such top-down tactics might be enforced easily at live performances  as one of my research assistants observed firsthand at a Chris Rock show in Niagara Falls. However  as a daily ritual for high-school students  all-or-nothing digital abstinence enforced by an authority figure seems destined to backfire  possibly leading to rejection—or even worse  a legal complaint. In an attempt to tackle this disciplinary problem  I have been offering workshops to schoolteachers that riff on and revise the design Yondr originated. In the workshops  I provide a kit that allows students to make their own digital abstinence case  but with an obnoxiously loud Velcro enclosure rather than a silent  magnetic clasp. This semipermeable design—the Resistor Case  I call it—is intended to promote self-regulation  not authoritarian control. The Velcro acts as a gateway to conscience: It provides just enough resistance and noise to make its owner think twice before opening it. Michael I. Norton  Daniel Mochon  and Dan Ariely coined the “IKEA effect” to name the increase in value people assign to self-made products. With the Resistor Case  I’m counting on a similar effect  that students who fist construct and then choose to make use of their DIY phone lockers might be more compelled to use them. Of course  the kit will only work if the teacher provides a context for it that includes a discussion of responsible smartphone use. (The kit provides a series of cards to prompt this conversation.)
[EX A]: Positive

[EX Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Al Franken ? The Democratic partyâs strategy for responding to  the Al Franken scandal  is now apparent: Taking up Frankenâs own hint in  his  apology statement  there will be an âEthics Committee investigation.â
Investigate what  Senate Clouseaus?  Franken  has been caught on film. When Los Angeles radio host Leeann Tweeden said that during a 2006 USO tour  Franken  used  his  position as an entertainer to rope her into kissing  him  in the guise of a rehearsal for a sketch  that was repellent enough. Franken âput his hand on the back of my head  mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth â Tweeden said  and  Franken  offered no specific alternative story  only a lame suggestion that âI donât remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does.â
Is the Senate Ethics Committee going to invite Tweeden in to tell her story and try to nail down exactly what  Franken  claims happened? Is the Senate Ethics Committee going to issue an open call to any other women out there who may have similar claims about  Franken  to submit their testimony? I doubt it. The purpose of this phony investigation is to give the appearance of doing something while allowing time to pass and tempers to cool  on the way to administering some meaningless reprimand to  Franken .
 Franken  might be able to shake this off if  he  could depend on conflicting memories. But  he  canât. Because of that photo. The sex-abuse scandal is becoming  to cultural history  what Watergate was to political history. It is gigantic. It is era-defining. And among the dozens of famous people implicated in it  the  Franken  photo is the most damning and irrefutable evidence yet to emerge. Itâs a tableau of our time. It is the photo of our moment. Itâs the kind of smoking gun you couldnât use in a Law & Order episode because it would be too blatant. It will never disappear from the national consciousness.
Consider the breathtaking way each detail reinforces the horror of the others: A Hollywood celebrity who will soon be a Democratic senator is molesting a woman. While sheâs asleep. And in military gear  because sheâs traveling to support our troops. In a war zone. And  Franken  is smiling. While shamelessly posing for the photographer. How can we ever cease to be amazed and appalled by this photo? It is to the sex war what the picture of the summary execution of that Viet Cong prisoner was to the Vietnam War.
Yet as the Senate circles the wagons around  Franken   itâs liberals and Democrats who should be angry â not Republicans. To Republicans itâs Thanksgiving come early. It makes no difference to the Republican policy agenda whether  Franken  or some other generic liberal Democrat holds that seat. If  Franken  remains  Roy Mooreâs chances of victory in Alabama increase. It makes it too easy for Republicans in Alabama to say  âWait a minute  weâre supposed to end the career of Roy Moore  a legend in this state  when Democrats wonât expel  Franken ? Why should we agree to unilateral ethics enforcement?â Should Moore make it to the Senate  Democrats will be able to cast Republicans as the party of sex creeps only if they expel  Franken . Every time Mooreâs name is mentioned  the response will be  âWhat about  Al Franken ? And by the way  what about Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy?â
True  in a certain sense this isnât fair. What Moore probably did is worse than what  Franken  admitted doing. But politics isnât fair. Whataboutism and crying hypocrisy arenât very strong moral arguments  but theyâre easy to make and theyâre emotionally satisfying. And a photograph of obvious wrongdoing simply carries more salience than a verbal allegation â even if the allegation is credible and even if the behavior alleged is worse than that seen in the photo.
Democrats who just this week were saying they would no longer tolerate Bill Clintonâtype behavior can prove it. They can make a clear break with the past by saying no more sexual misbehavior will be tolerated  even by beloved party members. They could then leverage that moral clarity in 2018 to seek the votes of the married women who are wary about the liberal agenda but might be persuadable. Instead  theyâre protecting their own. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand either can position herself as Americaâs leading tribune for women victimized by sexual assault or she can support keeping  Franken  in the Senate  but not both. Her initial gambit â  his  apology isnât enough but âI expect to hear moreâ from Franken â is insufficient. What more is there for  Franken  to say now that  he  has admitted guilt and apologized? The Democrats are creating a three-word weapon with which the GOP will never stop beating them over the head: What. About. Franken.
Al Franken Gives Liberals Another Chance at Virtue
[EX A]:
Neutral