Pew Research shows that only 34% of people under 30 watch TV for news in 2012, whopping 15% drop from 2006. In contrast, more people over 50 watch TV for news in 2012 than in 2006 (table below taken from Poynter.org):
Coincidentally, people between 55 and 69 ("boomer generation") are the ones who have disproportionately gained jobs since Obama took office. Jobs may be part-time, low-pay (most likely), but they are jobs nonetheless. The biggest loser is the group in the prime work years (25 to 54).
From Zero Hedge:
(I am not claiming any causality. When I saw the former table, I simply remembered the latter chart.)
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
7 comments:
Because most people seem to use the internet for news now. Phones, laptops, whatever.
Because daily news on Japanese TV is generally so formulaic, wooden, robotic, with zero-personality announcers...washed of all life and energy. Bleh! Double bleh!
US TV news is useless. It is generally inaccurate, focusing on whatever aspect benefits the media owners to spin the news into what they want rather than reporting facts.
Most people who use the internet get their news that way through aggregate sites, twitter, facebook or sources like this one that focus on certain aspects of the news and do a WAY better job than the US news does. :-)
Here is a perfect example of why people have grown to distrust the news.
"Radioactive contamination unearthed at former rocket test site near Los Angeles"
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15878279-radioactive-contamination-unearthed-at-former-rocket-test-site-near-los-angeles?lite
This story does its best to down play the problem you'll notice they never give out hard numbers just the standard "radioactive concentrations exceeding background levels". The closest they come is saying," The pollution occurred in restricted areas of the lab and environmental officials said there was no immediate threat to the community because the site is secure". "No immediate threat" where have I heard that before? Well the site isn't secured from wildlife transporting this contamination offsite for the last few decades but never mind the facts Boeing just wants this to go away.
In this other article they want you to know there are much worse tragedies in the west but of course they don't mention them by name. "The EPA deals with Superfund sites around the United States and many former Energy Department facilities in the West are more contaminated than Santa Susana, said Michael Montgomery, assistant director of EPA's Superfund division". They might as well say," if you think this is bad then don't look over there because we really screwed up other places 10x's worse". Or "I shot someone but it's OK because I shot a lot more people elsewhere.
Then there is this comment by the EPA remedial project manager:
"Once the cleanup starts, if soils are being transported from the site, that certainly would be of some concern if some soils are being transported through your neighborhood," Aycock said.
So they want to give the impression the contamination levels are just above background levels but transporting the soil is a concern.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57558931/epa-finds-radioactive-contamination-at-former-rocket-test-site-near-l.a/
OT- more contamination in someone's back yard for those interested.
http://www.defendblackhills.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:americas-secret-chernobyl&catid=16:uranium&Itemid=27
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/uranium_mining_case_studies#.UMp6JLahDRZ
that easy to understans. People can use intenet for almost their news needs.
impressed to view your blog its really nice and helpful, i am going to sahre ex-skf blog with my friends, hope that they will like it....
Females
Post a Comment