In response to another video, 35percentt of commentators suggested conspiracy theories, 95percentt of the comments were critical of Britain, and 26percentt suggested inconsistencies in the British narrative.
Many of the comments were critical of her and praised Putin.
Only four of the comments were critical of Russia, Putin or RT's claims.
Only one of the top 100 comments was critical of Russia — but it also stated that the British government was similarly untrustworthy.
Others saw it as reason to doubt the RT network, calling it "fake news". In comparison, only 16percentt of the comments were critical of Britain, while 4percentt suggested the interview was an example of Russian trolling.
On one video, 73percentt of the comments suggested there was a conspiracy at work, with claims such as "it is more likely the CIA poisoned them to place blame on Russia". Some 44percentt of comments were critical of Britain and its allies, and 27percentt noted inconsistencies in British claims.
Some of those comments were critical, with one user writing, "Anne, you're a great author.
Mar. 1, 2017, 6 54 p.m. W pushes back at the notion that his recent comments were critical of Trump.
Two hundred and fifty-two comments were critical of the government and 66 comments were positive.
Doctors whose comments were critical of the EWTD sometimes suggested specific, positive ways in which current working patterns could be improved.
The main motive for anonymising reviewers is to avoid a backlash from the authors should the comments be critical, but this may allow reviewers to become particularly negative with their responses and may have the overall effect of dissuading emerging authors from attempting further submissions to either the same journal or elsewhere.
