>>Sorry, JR, but again, straw-man fallacies. It's easy to discredit the low-hanging fruit.
>
>Examples, just examples. My point is that modern wo/man has constant buzz of twitter, txt, headlines and titillation to a ridiculous extent at will so it's no longer easy to distinguish a big ticket item. In the old days they printed the headline in oversize text. In 2015 some dweeb down the road uses the biggest font in town and people are sensitized and barely notice amongst the rest of the busy beeping and messaging noise 24/7.

You know, I've thought about that, and I'm actually not so sure the world is that much different than it was in, say, 1984/1985

There seems to be some revisionist history concerning men like Ronald Reagan. At the time, the left demonized him. They got all worked up about his famous joke, "I've passed legislation that will outlaw Russians forever, the bombing starts in five minutes". I briefly was friends with a girl from Oberlin who would practically cry with anger about the famous, "trees cause pollution" from Reagan - she and her friends thought Reagan was surely going to start a war and get us all nuked.

These days the moderate libs recall Reagan with a certain fondness, and they even praise William F Buckley. It totally cracks me up. I've got news for those people - back in the 1980's they hated Reagan's/Buckley's guts.

As for the difficulty in distinguishing a big ticket item - here's my formula. Most of what comes from MSNBC is maybe 5% right, and what comes out of Fox is about 95% hype. :)