4 ms·
You know, I'll be the first to admit that Friedman doesn't hesitate to ignore any solid evidence and a look instead for the closest funny/shiny/trendy anecdote,
by diego_moita 15y ago
You know, I'll be the first to admit that Friedman doesn't hesitate to ignore any solid evidence and a look instead for the closest funny/shiny/trendy anecdote, story or buzzword. Gosh, even Malcolm Gladwell does better "research" than Friedman!
But presenting as counter-evidence a publication behind a pay wall is not much better, either.
Can you provide us more details than a simple hyper-link to an abstract that doesn't relate to your point?
- tryitnow 15y agoGood point, plus doesn't the study end in 2009? "Budget Cuts and Social Unrest in Europe, 1919-2009" It just addresses growing media penetration? How on earth can this study address social media with a data set that is mostly pre-2000? I think the best we can say now is that the jury is still out. I have no idea how citing a study where the bulk of the data is from the 20th century can say anything useful about social media. Thanks for posting the link to the study though - always glad to see folks trying to back up their assertions with evidence.
- ramchip 15y agoHere is the document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62248736/DP8513 http://www.scribd.com/doc/62248736/DP8513 I'm not sure if it's free to read or not since I may be behind a university proxy. I think it is though, it's more or less a draft.