instruction:
In this task, you are given product reviews about dvds. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive(the reviewer is satisfied) or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative(the reviewer is not satisfied).
question:
dvd -Love Comes Softly . "Oh my goodness!!!" If you LOVE a feel good, emotional roll-a-coaster, family movie. This is it!! This is one of the best movies I have ever watched. It has all the elements of every emotion you can come up with. The actors are superb and you feel like your part of the scene. I have watched it 3 times and will watch it again. Just make sure you have a box of kleenex handy
answer:
POS


question:
One of the iconic classics of the genre . If you are a fan of early SciFi movies, this is a must-have for your library. There are some classic shot sequences that have been honored in more recent films, and you should look for these. For example, Spielberg must be a big fan. Pay attention to the shot compositions for the field (fence, lighting, etc.) and seek out homages to be found in Close Encounters and War of the Worlds.    It is also highly informative to note the perspectives used for social mores, and for science in general. In today's world, the notion that "the town scientist" would turn his astonomical telescope into the daylight sky and view heavenly objects, then turn it below the horizontal and look across the countryside to view the goings on at a top secret military base, are both hoots. That the scientist sees a classic rocketship and knows simply by the form that it is "atomic", is classic. One can only imagine the wonder that science and the future held for the popular mind back then that the writers could get away with that kind of stuff.    And yet, in contrast, note the strong presentation of the female role, not as a nurse, but as a doctor who makes the initial tough decisions and takes charge of the situation, driving the story forward. Very progressive, when contrasted with the "scientist love interest who exists to admire the brilliance, bravery and manhood of the hero" found in the typical films of this genre and era. Admittedly, our heroine is subjected to those stereotypes later on in the story, which is disappointing.    I also love the military response. This is shortly after WWII. Because some kid has a bug up his tail, we roll the tanks onto the trains and storm the town. Commanding officers up on rooftops with binoculars!!    In summary, our modern levels of sophistication might diminish this film to Mystery Science Theater, but that would be unfair. Instead, I recommend watching it once for the sheer joy of it. Then, watch it a second time with a more critical eye and have all your laughs and pick out all your iconic scenes for future reference
answer:
POS


question:
Not so fair and completely unbalanced - see my media scorecard . Pundits would have you believe that Fox news and Rupert Murdoch are the antithesis of quality journalism.  They even based a Bond villian on Murdoch in one ofe the more forgettable movies. Nothing gets a liberal's eyes rolling than when you say you watch Fox News.  This Attackumentary wants you to believe that Fox is biased and not credible.  Watch this Attackumentary and listen for yourself to what they are saying and draw your own conclusions.    The former reporters gripe throughout this "piece" that Rupert Murdoch changed how reporters operate, for the worse in their opinion.  What actually happened is that these reporters had to work for a change.  They had to work hard, something they probably never did before.  Murdoch, like any driven person, demanded nothing less than excellence from his employees.  Those that could hang, rose with Fox news.  Those that could not keep up appear in "OutFoxed".    Fox does have a bias on its commentary section.  This draws ratings.  The thing that the pundits seem to have a problem with is separating the Journalism from the Commentary sections even with Fox putting a big sign up saying "Commentary".  They are so used to their "Mainstream" liberal journalists blending their personal views and possibly slipping in actual news that they cannot tell the difference anymore.    Here is my latest scorecard:  Mainstream Media:  Latest and greatest from Reuters, a major supplier of news to the always objective "mainstream media"; fired a reporter for falsifying photos to show violence worse than actually happened.  This photographer decided that his photos (or the war) was not alarming enough so he added a few more smoke plumes and darkened the overall image.  How many other war photos have been doctored this way?  On the Reuters' news page there is no mention of this deliberately manufactured garbage.  You had to go to their main page and look way over to the right side to find the story.  I guess they still have enough shame to be embarassed about this incident.     The bastion of liberal "non-thinking"; New York Times has had several reporters writing stories about events that they did not actually do background work on.  In other words, they phoned in their stories without any actual knowledge of the events.  They also revealed secrets that hurt the World's efforts on fighting terrorists.  CNN - Nicknamed the Clinton News Network during the 90's for swallowing anything the Clintons had to give and asking for seconds, the only thing they were upset about during the whole Lewinsky scandal was that they wanted to be the ones under the desk.  On their online "News Headlines" section they repeatedly have Lou Dobb's column appear mixed in with news as if what he says is news.  Lou Dobb's is the paid liberal mouthpiece for CNN and everything he states is opinion not news.  You would think they would put him on their opinion section but unlike Fox they don't have one.  They think it is perfectly all right to mix opinion with news.  USA Today breaks a huge story on a massive phone tapping scandal.  Oops, turns out it wasn't as massive as it seemed and the data was given voluntarily.  Over 70% of the American population agreed with the Bush administration on this move despite his otherwise low approval rating.    CBS's Dan Rather, this is the man man who nearly wept on camera when the Republican revolution swept through Congress in 1994.  All his hopes of a liberal presidency were washed away.  He launched a smear campaign against President Bush using the worst journalistic standards imaginable.  His background investigation was nil.  People discredited this story almost instantly and yet he persisted on reporting it.  After everything was said and done he still tried everything in his power to prevent having to recant.  The editor for the Los Angeles times had to put out a memo to his people to try not to be so biased during the 2004 election.  Finally there is Newsweek, whose irresponsible reporting was the direct cause of riots that led to a score of deaths and untold injuries.  They were so eager to report the desecration of Islam's holy writ that they failed to see if it actually happened.  They ended up recanting with a pseudo apology that laid the blame on everyone but themselves.  The blood may wash off easy but do the memories and guilt remain?   That is a question the reporters and the editors can only answer. If so, that is the punishment you deserve for abusing one of the most important and influential professions in the World.  Perhaps others will think twice before fanning the flames of hatred just to sell a few more issues.      These are just minor examples of how the "Mainstream" Media operates.  These are real stories and influence real events in the world, sometimes with serious consequences.  This is not the same as news commentators spouting off at the mouth about an issue of the day.  If you want more then read the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg to get a real understanding.  I will stick to Fox News as I have yet to find a major scandal regarding how they report the news.  Like any prudent person I take my news from a variety of sources and choose for myself on how to interpret what it all means.  I do take news with a grain of salt if it is coming from sources that have proven they are more interested in being first than in being correct.  CNN, Reuters, CBS, Newsweek, NY Times all fall squarely into the "dubious at best" category.    All I have gotten from this attackumentary is a bunch of liberals and hack reporters whining because Fox separates the opinions from the facts,allowing people to decide for themselves how they want to interpret the news and America loves them for it.    The liberals hate Fox news.   Fox actually investigates and reports on what happened; not what the liberals wished would have happened.  They show the liberals for what they are, full of $%$^.  They hated it when Fox repeatedly showed then President Clinton walking in a funeral procession laughing it up, that is until he saw a TV camera and started shedding crocodile tears.    Fox news made the general public aware that the budget successes of the 90's was due mostly to Newt Gingrich.  Clinton had a disastrous first 2 years of his presidency.  Gingrich's congress would not send Clinton the pork barrel projects so he couldn't spend to excess.  I wish we had Gingrich leading the congress doing the same to President Bush.    I am sure Rupert Murdoch is feeling "Outfoxed"; right now his network is ranked numero Uno as it has been for some time.  This DVD is hovering between 2000 and 3000.  I am ranked higher than it is.
answer:

NEG