Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Schaffer Wice is Neutral . The media-savvy special prosecutors have colluded with the Fourth Estate to try — and convict — Paxton in the court of public opinion long before the case even comes to trial.  Wice  in particular is an aspiring media celebrity  serving as a TV “legal analyst” on Houston’s Channel 2 (KPRC) since 2003. Think of a male version of Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren — a Dan Abrams wannabe. One profile described the bombastic  Wice  as a “media magnet” who “never shies away from the spotlight.” The KPRC website brags that
Beginning the very day  Schaffer  and Wice were appointed by Becker  the prosecutors were in contact with the media  shamelessly promoting themselves by mass distributing press statements and publicity photos.  Schaffer  and  Wice  obviously intended to milk the case for all the news coverage they could get  for two self-serving reasons: to poison the well of public opinion against Paxton  and to generate free advertising to attract future clients. Neither motive is ethical for a special prosecutor. Yet   Wice  has conceded that pretrial media coverage “impacts the way potential jurors view our client’s case long before they are ushered into the courtroom for voir dire. Being able to effectively represent your client on the courthouse steps can be every bit as important as representing them inside the courtroom.”
Moreover   Wice  once cynically acknowledged the economic benefits of making media appearances  informing fellow lawyers that “appearing on TV is client development — free advertising — that might well yield future business. And you never can tell what that one local  or  with a bit of good fortune  national TV appearance  can do for you or your practice.” Exploiting the media  in other words  is the latest form of ambulance chasing. “Celebrity” attorneys  like the Kardashians  are famous for being famous.
In that vein  Schaffer and Wice continued a steady stream of self-aggrandizing communications with the press corps during the “investigation” and grand jury phases  despite the strict secrecy associated with the grand jury process. The special prosecutors had numerous communications (by email and telephone) with the New York Times’ reporter early in the case  following which the NYT reported Paxton’s indictment on August 1  2015  before the indictment was even unsealed. Was this national media scoop a coincidence? The special prosecutors were the obvious source of the highly-unprofessional leak  but the press corps gratefully reciprocated by uncritically reporting  Wice ’s spin as “news.”
In addition to regularly sending eager reporters status updates and copies of pleadings and orders  on at least two occasions  Wice  circulated to the media Paxton’s annual Personal Financial Statement  presumably to encourage reporters to scrutinize the donors to Paxton’s legal defense fund — a wholly improper purpose. In an even more egregious breach of propriety   Wice  emailed a copy of Paxton’s booking “mugshot” to his KPRC colleague  reporter Phil Archer  shortly after Paxton was released on bail. The only word to describe this type of conduct is “sleazy.”
Intemperately denouncing Paxton’s legal arguments as “frivolous” and “clearly baseless ” the special prosecutors’ tone toward Paxton dripped with contempt as they delivered sound bites to groveling reporters on deadline. When asked by a reporter about a new attorney joining the Paxton defense team to deal with the federal civil case (which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice)   Schaffer  sarcastically responded “Never heard of him. Looks like we set off the Lawyer Relief Act…” When a prominent Paxton supporter wrote an op-ed in the Midland Reporter-Telegram  criticizing the indictment  the thin-skinned prosecutors immediately issued a florid press statement — presumably on the taxpayers’ nickel — condemning the piece as a “rant” containing “lies bathed in the cologne of half-truths  fabrications and disinformation.”
Mimicking the prosecutors’ flippant and unprofessional tone  some reporters began running stories with shockingly-unbalanced headlines  such as “Another Day  Another Idiotic Ken Paxton Motion ” which  Schaffer  and Wice gleefully circulated to their media contacts  with the message “I love it.” If media outlets did not parrot the prosecutors’ swaggering narrative  they were cut off from “insider access.”
This incestuous arrangement likely explains why the Dallas Morning News  which was closely following the Paxton case  never reported the bombshell mentioned in Part 2 — that  Schaffer  was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal RICO case against the leader of the Bandidos motorcycle gang — a revelation that would have greatly tarnished the special prosecutors’ undeserved Boy Scout image — which McGaughy had gone to extraordinary lengths to burnish.
This apparently referred to Paxton’s retention of a defense team that included Dan Cogdell and Philip Hilder  with respect to whom  Schaffer  and Wice issued polite public statements.
The hundreds of email exchanges between the prosecutors and reporters (McGaughy in particular) are clearly collusive. With the avid cooperation of the press corps  for two and a half years  Schaffer  and Wice have been busy smearing Paxton through leaks and planted stories  all while risibly claiming to be “seeking justice on behalf of the people of Texas.”
To re-cap this series: The baseless  politicized prosecution of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been a travesty on many levels. Following the recusal of Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis  the matter should not have been referred to mercenary “special prosecutors” for investigation;  Schaffer  (the unindicted co-conspirator in a RICO case) and Wice (an incorrigible diva) were not suitable for the assignment in any event; the open-ended compensation arrangement agreed to by Judge Scott Becker was both unlawful and foolhardy; the grand jury indictment improperly obtained by the unscrupulous prosecutors amounts to fabricated felonies — made-up crimes never previously prosecuted in a Texas court; the overtly-biased George Gallagher presided over the case as a farcical kangaroo court; changing the venue of the case to Harris County was an absurd and outrageous denial of due process to Paxton; et cetera  ad infinitum.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Armour is Neutral . Under Armour  has a new subscription service.
 Stitch Fix  has been successful  which bodes well for Under  Armour .
Under  Armour  has just announced a new subscription service called ArmourBox.
Here's how it works: Tell Under  Armour  what kind of clothes you like and how you work out  and they'll ship you a box with four to six items for you to consider purchasing. No purchase is required  there's no fee  and shipping is free both ways. If you like the whole box and buy it all  you'll get a 20% discount.
There are a few differences between the two services. Stitch Fix doesn't work on a subscription model unless you want it to  each box carries a $20 fee unless you buy something  and Stitch Fix carries more than just its house brands  unlike Under Armour.
With ArmourBox  on the other hand  you can choose to receive a shipment every 30  60  or 90 days  but you can't skip a delivery or pause your subscription.
Under Armour's service carries no fees  and there are no charges unless you forget to return a box or you decide to buy something. The customer is required to take action within seven days so that they're not charged for it all.
The no-risk strategy is an ambitious play to get product into customers' homes so that they can evaluate it on their own time. It's a sign of the confidence that Under  Armour  has in  its  offerings. It's hoping that if it can get its stuff in people's hands  they'll like it enough to continue receiving it.
If that doesn't happen  Under Armour has worse problems than a failed subscription service.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Mike Ditka is Negative . Mike Ditka  who knows the perils of coaching after a layoff   said  he  likes Jon Gruden’s chances of succeeding as new head coach of the Oakland Raiders. But  Ditka  suggested  it  won’t be easy for Gruden  who will be officially introduced as the Raiders coach Tuesday after a nine-year absence from the sidelines.
“ It ’s a helluva challenge ’’  Ditka  told USA TODAY Sports on Monday. “Let’s face  it .  It ’s a big challenge  and I think  he ’s up to  it .’’
A return to the sidelines for  Ditka  failed spectacularly.  He  was 106-62 as head coach of the Chicago Bears from 1982 to 1992 and  after a four-year hiatus  15-33 as head coach with the New Orleans Saints from 1997 to 1999.
 Mike Ditka  had a 15-33 record in three seasons as coach of the Saints. (Photo: ROBERT HANASHIRO  USA TODAY)
Recalling the experiment   Ditka  said a lack of desire undermined  him .
“I think there’s a lot of ego involved  although you hate to admit  it  ’’  he  said. “I want to prove I can still do  it  and this and that. But if the heart’s not in it  I mean totally in it. ... It’s really hard to say  ‘Oh  I’m going to amp it up and then everything will be fine.’ It doesn’t work that way.’’
A lack of desire wasn’t the only issue   Ditka  said.
“Personnel is where we really screwed up ’’  he  said. “I thought that I could really get by with the quarterbacks we had. ... I had every guy named Billy Bob in the world. So put  it  this way   it  was an experience.
“They’re glad  it ’s over and I’m pretty glad  it ’s over  too.’’
The Raiders have Derek Carr  not a Billy Bob  at quarterback  and  Ditka  said  he  expects Gruden to invigorate the Raiders’ offense and elevate the entire team.
“It’s a great job ’’  Ditka  said. “It’s a great opportunity for him.’’
[EX A]:
no