Pentagon: Many Guantanamo Prisoners Return to Fight. This Is Why Young People Don't Read Newspapers

[Rusty5329]

Recently, I wrote about how important the difference between sourcing and linking is to young people. I wrote about how skeptical my generation is, how we are never surprised to find politicians, journalists, teachers, anyone, lying to us. I wrote about how linking to sources provides our skepticism with somewhere to go. This article on MSNBC's website is the perfect example.

This article asserts that "many detainees rejoin fight" without ever taking the time to define the term "rejoin fight."

continued at http://leftchattering.blogspot.com/2009/05/this-is-why-young-people-dont-read.html

[merh]

1. your article is spot on

I like your blog - welcome to DU :hi:

[Rusty5329]

4. thank you, that is so kind...

both the compliment and the welcome.

I've been lurking here for well over a year now, just recently started actually "participating"

[RC]

2. Has anyone figured out yet, that if we got out of their country there'd be no one left

for them to fight? Duh!

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Wonderful sentiment, but naive...

You're saying that radical Islamists would just lay down their arms and go back to their nomadic life if we left their country? Honestly? You're saying that they'll RE-INTERPRET the words of Mohammed to mean that infidels are no threat to Islam? That's what you're saying?

[RC]

11. I am saying "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!!"

Don't be so dumb!
The radical Islamists are largely our fault just for being in and meddling in their their countries.
Why are we in the Middle East in the first place? The main reason for this 'Terrorist Threat' we are 'fighting', is because we attacked TWO countries, that were no threat to us, U.S., on the excuse of 9/11. Why did we not go after Saudi Arabia? It was mostly their hi-jackers after all.
We should have stayed out of both countries. 9/11 was blow-back. The bu$h administration needed a 9/11 situation to get some wars started again for fun and profit. Peace is just not profitable enough. In other words there are terrorists because of the direct actions of the United States to make sure there were terrorists to keep the wars going. So soon you forget the last administration. You know, the administration that ignored all the warnings about the terrorists attacks and did nothing until 2½ hours after the the planes were hijacked! Yeah, that one!

Clinton almost had peace in the Middle East, then bu$h threw the ball away.

[blaze]

3. Well said Rusty5329

Welcome! :hi:

[Rusty5329]

6. thank you for the welcome...

I'm getting that a lot here. In the words of Martha Stewart, "That's a good thing."

[gratuitous]

5. Why you young whippersnappers!

You're supposed to just believe it when the government tells you something. It's the government! Ask any Republican about whether the military ever lies. They'll tell you that you're a traitor who doesn't support the troops, which is just exactly what you rapscallions deserve to be told!

And get a haircut.

[handmade34]

7. ahhh... the days of Murrow, Sevareid, Pyle,....

to me the difference is one of time and convienience. Providing only sources without links merely means the reader is left with the chore of sometimes extensive research. I agree with you and being much older can say it is environment/culture. Even my kids were born into a world where by the time they were reading and studying had access to a computer. My generation didn't and learned that if we wanted the real facts, we spent some time in the library.

[Rusty5329]

8. so true...

By this point, you would think the NY Times and MSNBC would have learned how to include links in their online articles. The fact that they still do not is laziness, at best, or intentional neglect at worst.

I am old enough to remember what things were like before the internet, or before a vibrant internet. I can remember having to do research on sources. I just find it absurd that reporters, who have apparently already done the research, continue to leave us with just the sources when they could so easily provide us near the entirety of their research.

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. I remember we had a "magazine rack" on one wall by our front door.

.
.

It was filled with Time, McLean's, National Geographic and other regular publications.

Our bedrooms all had book racks - Mine alone time was filled with books by Jack London, the Hardy Boys mysteries, Nancy Drew dozens of others I forget - oh

and a cupboard filed with hundreds of comic books - would be worth a fortune today if I still had them . .

yeah,

I go WAY back as a reader

used to read with a tiny flashlight under my blankets when I was supposed to be sleeping

Even now, 50 years later, I sometimes only stop to read a particular book to eat and perform other necessary bodily functions - - I can still literally "devour" a 500+ page book in less than a day

I constantly use Google to look up words/situations I don't understand

My curiosity about everything remains undiminished - the older I get, the more I realize how LITTLE I know

sad tho - when I was a teen-ager

I KNEW EVERYTHING!

(sigh)

[Rusty5329]

12. I totally google words while reading too...

And even though I am young, I still keep plenty of good old fashioned books around. Mostly, it's because I'm not a huge fan of reading for long stretches of time on the computer. And I still haven't found a good way to underline/take notes.