View Full Version : Illeturite in Oklahoma



JRDave
01-05-2009, 10:51 AM
http://www.paper-pills.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/illiterate.JPG

This blog post (http://blogs.journalrecord.com/hottopic/2008/12/30/okc-is-the-43rd-most-literate-city-tulsa-is-21st/#comments) (<- click there) shows that Oklahoma ranks 43rd out of the metros in the nation in terms of illiteracy. The study is based on indicators such as the amount of newspaper subscribers, libraries and bookstores. Check the link for the particulars.

By the way, Tulsa placed 21st. What's up with that?

:fighting2

Midtowner
01-05-2009, 01:52 PM
Is the title of this thread on purpose?

Otherwise...

http://i29.tinypic.com/mj3h4k.jpg

Martin
01-05-2009, 02:24 PM
is the title of this thread on purpose?

otherwise...

i was going to recommend:

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg

-M

Bunty
01-05-2009, 03:49 PM
At least OKC is ranked above several major Texas metros. So let Texas be bigger or more so in something like that.

betts
01-05-2009, 10:56 PM
http://www.paper-pills.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/illiterate.JPG

This blog post (http://blogs.journalrecord.com/hottopic/2008/12/30/okc-is-the-43rd-most-literate-city-tulsa-is-21st/#comments) (<- click there) shows that Oklahoma ranks 43rd out of the metros in the nation in terms of illiteracy. The study is based on indicators such as the amount of newspaper subscribers, libraries and bookstores. Check the link for the particulars.

By the way, Tulsa placed 21st. What's up with that?

:fighting2

Those are ridiculous indicators, as they have very little to do with literacy, or determining how many people are or aren't literate.
There may be more people choosing to read newspapers online, or people who don't care to spend money on our newspaper. We don't build fewer libraries because we know we have more illiterate people, and I doubt demand has anything to do with how many libraries are built. The number of bookstores is probably related more to financial demographics than anything, since most bookstores nowadays are chains.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
01-06-2009, 01:18 AM
Those are ridiculous indicators, as they have very little to do with literacy, or determining how many people are or aren't literate.
There may be more people choosing to read newspapers online, or people who don't care to spend money on our newspaper. We don't build fewer libraries because we know we have more illiterate people, and I doubt demand has anything to do with how many libraries are built. The number of bookstores is probably related more to financial demographics than anything, since most bookstores nowadays are chains.

X2. I don't subscribe to (or really buy very often for that matter) any newspapers nor do I go to the library. If I get a book, chances are I ordered it used off the intertubes because they're a LOT cheaper.

So according to their logic...I'm illiterate.

And I had my service monkey type this post.

FRISKY
01-06-2009, 03:43 AM
Those people are not “illiterate” because they opt for modern sources of information.

Magazines, newspapers and television news are losing huge numbers of subscribers because a lot of people don’t blindly trust information from the contemporary, typically one sourced and politically liberal, biased news media. In the same vein, Public Libraries aren’t as practical since the advent of the internet has made easy access to global information sources a viable reality.

BradR
01-06-2009, 09:26 AM
i kant wread or right becauz i dont bye newzpaper?

MadMonk
01-06-2009, 11:12 AM
I can understand porno stores, but why were "religious bookstores" excluded? Do they think people buy religious works for the pictures? :LolLolLol

Jesseda
01-06-2009, 11:15 AM
i caint reid wat thaaat psyn seys?

Kerry
01-06-2009, 12:23 PM
I can understand porno stores, but why were "religious bookstores" excluded? Do they think people buy religious works for the pictures? :LolLolLol

Now that is funny.

This is the kind of crap that passes for scientific studies these days. Take 10 or 12 characteristics that the author thinks are important, weight them to get a desired outcome, and then publish it. Here is one easy way to do this study. Get a page out of a book and ask 100 people on the street to read it. If they can’t then they are illiterate. One questions though – we subscribe to the newspaper and have a library card; are we counted twice or are we considered more literate. I wonder what all of the study criteria were and the weightings.

TaoMaas
01-06-2009, 01:24 PM
Magazines, newspapers and television news are losing huge numbers of subscribers because a lot of people donít blindly trust information from the contemporary, typically one sourced and politically liberal, biased news media.

Sorry...not true. Yes, those sources are losing viewership, but it's not because of any perceived political bias. If it were, wouldn't conservative papers, like the Oklahoman, be flourishing? They're not, you know. They're suffering the same problems as every other media outlet. The decrease in viewers is caused by a limited number of eyeballs being spread out over an ever-increasing number of options.

jsibelius
01-07-2009, 11:29 AM
Sorry...not true. Yes, those sources are losing viewership, but it's not because of any perceived political bias. If it were, wouldn't conservative papers, like the Oklahoman, be flourishing? They're not, you know. They're suffering the same problems as every other media outlet. The decrease in viewers is caused by a limited number of eyeballs being spread out over an ever-increasing number of options.

Information overload. Until I moved here, I had always been a newspaper subscriber. I stopped subscribing because I can't get a newspaper delivered consistently - or else someone keeps stealing it. I just read it online now. Something that was apparently overlooked. But literacy and "an informed public" are two very different things. Literacy, as you all know, is the ability to read, write, and communicate in writing. The availability of bookstores, libraries, and newspaper subscriptions is no indicator of literacy. It might be an indicator of an informed public, but again, I think we've shown that people are getting their information from other places than physical media.

Kerry
01-07-2009, 02:03 PM
You guys are giving too much credibility to this crackpot researcher. He clearly gets government funding that he is trying to keep and has to produce something to show for the money. So he comes up with this niche pseudo-science to justify his living off the public dole. Now he claims to be the foremost leading scientific authority on literacy when really he is a societal sponge. I can't wait for the collapse of western civilization so these free loaders can get a real job or just die off. When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410AD I’ll bet people like Dr. John W. Miller were some of the first to bite the dust.

Hey, what do you know. I feel better now.

soonerguru
01-08-2009, 03:18 AM
Magazines, newspapers and television news are losing huge numbers of subscribers because a lot of people don’t blindly trust information from the contemporary, typically one sourced and politically liberal, biased news media

This is absurd. These media are completely different. There is a wide gulf between major print media and network media.

I'm sure you think NY Times is liberal, and yet their stories are multiply sourced, as are Time Magazine's, WashPost, etc. Without those two newspapers, we would probably lose 75 percent of our check on government and big business, because the cable TV journos will only do it if they can get a gotcha camera shot and as long as they don't have to do much research.

This is a radically different approach than cable news networks deploy, and since when did watching TV network talking heads relate to literacy?

It is true that Oklahoma is not a very literate state. I've met serious professionals in OKC that admitted to me the only thing they ever read is the Bible. I'm dead serious.

Not that college degrees mean everything, but we are also one of the least educated states.

old okie
01-08-2009, 09:10 PM
Silly me. :doh: I thought when I saw the title of the post that someone was going to take the local news anchors and print media to task for their hideous abuse of the English language! Imagine. I somehow perceived that literacy not only applied to the ability to read but also to the ability to comprehend AND use the language correctly.

I guess the researcher would accept "shot dead" as being correct, as long as the person using the ridiculous term held a library card, subscribed to a newspaper, and went to a book store??? Or perhaps "droppin' the 'g' on all the words endin' in -ing" IS the hallmark of "literacy"...and I'm the "illiterate" one. :doh: :doh:

JakeZula
01-09-2009, 06:52 PM
You guys are giving too much credibility to this crackpot researcher. He clearly gets government funding that he is trying to keep and has to produce something to show for the money. So he comes up with this niche pseudo-science to justify his living off the public dole. Now he claims to be the foremost leading scientific authority on literacy when really he is a societal sponge. I can't wait for the collapse of western civilization so these free loaders can get a real job or just die off. When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410AD Iíll bet people like Dr. John W. Miller were some of the first to bite the dust.

Hey, what do you know. I feel better now.

Yeah, all these crackpot scientists and researchers with their "hypotheses" and "analyses." How dare we spend government funds just to satisfy some weirdo's "innate curiosity" so that he can "make conclusions based on empirical evidence." Besides, when fallacies are discovered in a study like this, it only encourages others to conduct similar research to disprove or improve the original study. What a waste of everyone's time! How dare this whackjob "contribute to reaching a clearer understanding of his subject."

I mean, that's so stupid. Who needs these guys? Certainly not our national defense, space, education, and economic programs, am I right?

:doh:

Matt
01-09-2009, 08:01 PM
http://www.paper-pills.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/illiterate.JPG

How exactly is an illiterate person going to understand this sign?

USG '60
01-09-2009, 08:59 PM
You must be the guy in the picture. He is wondering, too.

JRDave
01-26-2009, 09:59 AM
...

JRDave
01-26-2009, 09:59 AM
Is the title of this thread on purpose?

Otherwise...

http://i29.tinypic.com/mj3h4k.jpg
Of courshe it was, you jackashe (in Sean Connery accent)

JRDave
01-26-2009, 02:58 PM
I am guessing here, but perhaps you didn't read the report on literacy (ironic as it sounds...haha.) It said this:

"Internet Data - Figures for “read a newspaper online” and “purchased a book online” were obtained from Scarborough Research’s February 2007-March 2008 USA+2008 Release."

DOH!