> The issue isn't whether there are abundant "literate" resources (podcasts, in your example) It was exactly my point that this is not a good argument. But rat

> The issue isn't whether there are abundant "literate" resources (podcasts, in your example) It was exactly my point that this is not a good argument. But rather that if one wishes to indulge in argument by anecdote, they can find ample evidence for the opposing view of this article. > I don't know about you, but when I look at the popular media and at political leaders, they seem highly illiterate compared to those from just a century ago Was Chester A Arthur "deeply literate"? William McKinley? Taft? Harding? Hoover? I suppose I know Teddy Roosevelt was having read his biography but all this again is anecdote. > Even the "literate elite" media, e.g. The New Yorker, has dropped in quality from a few decades ago. You'll forgive me if I find a subjective evaluation with a sample size of one unconvincing. > Regardless, this article is hardly the first or only study of this problem. Yes most writings about the subject are the same kind of anecdotal grumblings free of concrete evidence. Frankly, as is just about every argument Bloom ever made. I'm willing to accept the author's conclusion. And honestly I don't really care whether it is true or the opposite is. But if an author wishes for me to carry around their belief as part of my concept of the world they have to do better than this.