How much do people follow the news

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

My wife lowers that average down significantly.

The only time she watches any news is when one of my buddies is anchoring the news and she'll yell that he's on TV again.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

Not to change the topic or ignore your question re parliamentary but the internet has changed things significantly imo. I watch zero tv news and probably devote ten minutes a week to political news. But I feel like that’s all you need to have a general idea of what’s going on as that’s all it takes to read the political headlines that appear online.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Not to change the topic or ignore your question re parliamentary but the internet has changed things significantly imo. I watch zero tv news and probably devote ten minutes a week to political news. But I feel like that’s all you need to have a general idea of what’s going on as that’s all it takes to read the political headlines that appear online.

I suspect it has, people get their "news" from Twitter which is part of problem.

But I heard a quote long ago, Americans would rather discuss the Yankees instead of the news. That is very accurate, and always has been. We have always had these citizens, it is fine. But now they can get their 10 minute fix from following the crazy people.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I suspect it has, people get their "news" from Twitter which is part of problem.

But I heard a quote long ago, Americans would rather discuss the Yankees instead of the news. That is very accurate, and always has been. We have always had these citizens, it is fine. But now they can get their 10 minute fix from following the crazy people.

And tailored to them. Confirmation bias

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

Since I "work" from home, there is a news station on the TV all day long. It's more for background noise, than it is that I "follow". It does allow me to catch the main topics though.

 

[snarlcakes]

I think it just shows the continuing trend of MSM outlets losing viewers. People digest information now through some sort of social media medium. Turning on the TV and watching news at 9 is slowly going away. I personally either enjoy longer interviews/podcasts or X information I can read whenever I want. Sitting down and watching news at 9 is a foreign concept to myself. I know older people are more accustomed to it.

 

[abraxis]

My favorite is Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points segment and I watch it nearly every night. It’s on YouTube, weeknights. Mark Levin is another one I gravitate towards for his passion. Dan Bongino is intense and rounds out my top three but I’ll often listen to snippets of the other conservative talk show hosts if the current topic is hot. I guess it averages 45-60 min/weekday of personal viewership.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think it just shows the continuing trend of MSM outlets losing viewers. People digest information now through some sort of social media medium. Turning on the TV and watching news at 9 is slowly going away. I personally either enjoy longer interviews/podcasts or X information I can read whenever I want. Sitting down and watching news at 9 is a foreign concept to myself. I know older people are more accustomed to it.

Three networks and nothing else on back in the day. Now there’s too much good tv to bother with the news

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

Politics is consistently dishonest.

News coverage is Inherently dishonest so we have dishonesty x 2 when watching the news about politics.

Then when we spread ignorance over all of it, we have a disaster.

Rarely is political news intended to be informative. All of it is intended to be persuasive and foment anger.

Take this passage from your quote:

“the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction,”

Under 4% of the GOP voted to oust the speaker, 100% of the democrats voted to do that. Let this sink in. The House of Representatives together had an opportunity to put the crazies in their place and make this a non-issue; the House couldn’t even manage to do that. The “news” not only made it worse, it gave a level of prominence to the crazies.

The news sucks.

 

[hookyIU1990]

I stopped watching news on TV about the time Trump was elected.

If the opportunity presents itself, I'll watch the last 20 minutes of Brett Bair on Fox when he has the panel, depending on who the panel is, to hear something sane from both sides. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent on any of the other news channels. If there is, maybe someone can chime in with suggestions.

I've even stopped watching anything on FBN or CNBC during the day for business-related stuff.

I tend to read about things that interest me or have a direct effect on me more than look at the broader news landscape that the MSM wants to push.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

@Co.Hoosier


'..puts 'the crazies' in their place'..

'..gives credence to the crazies'...

To whom are you referring ?

 

[Thyrsis]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

Am I missing your link?

 

[Thyrsis]

Since I "work" from home, there is a news station on the TV all day long. It's more for background noise, than it is that I "follow". It does allow me to catch the main topics though.

Which news station?

 

[Thyrsis]

My favorite is Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points segment and I watch it nearly every night. It’s on YouTube, weeknights. Mark Levin is another one I gravitate towards for his passion. Dan Bongino is intense and rounds out my top three but I’ll often listen to snippets of the other conservative talk show hosts if the current topic is hot. I guess it averages 45-60 min/weekday of personal viewership.

You do you, but your intake is part of the problem.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Which news station?

"A" just meant one at a time, not a specific one. I scroll around, OANN, Newsmax then also the 3 local channels in bama or fox indy when I'm up north.

* ETA - I also come on here to hear what CNN is talking about. That way I get all of the current events.

 

[abraxis]

You do you, but your intake is part of the problem.

Better this “you” do me than me do you. We, you and me, create our own little worlds. Mine is a happy place nurtured in balloons (helium gassed), unicorns (white) and lollipops (cherry). Now, you do you and let’s see if we can find another part to this perceived problem you speak of.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Am I missing your link?

There is one in every group, actually want a link when one is promised .

The Low Information Trap: Why Don’t Voters “Get It?” Because They Don’t Know About It | Washington Monthly

Many voters aren’t reacting to Donald Trump’s many outrages because they don’t consume much news. At least, not yet.

washingtonmonthly.com

 

[BadWakeboarder]

I suspect it has, people get their "news" from Twitter which is part of problem.

But I heard a quote long ago, Americans would rather discuss the Yankees instead of the news. That is very accurate, and always has been. We have always had these citizens, it is fine. But now they can get their 10 minute fix from following the crazy people.

The problem with your statement is that crazy people work for the mainstream media now - they just hide their crazy better and hide behind once-powerful brand names.

Perhaps they were already there but they’ve been exposed now.

Everyone can see the Yankees with their own eyes and know what they see. I don’t believe anything the news shows me anymore unless it’s live footage of something happening. That’s how little I respect their journalism now. It’s turned to activism and it stinks.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

@Co.Hoosier


'..puts 'the crazies' in their place'..

'..gives credence to the crazies'...

To whom are you referring ?

The crazy eight.

Membership in the crazy club is fluid.

One thing I know for sure, any member who promises to “work across the aisle“ won’t when hard issues are involved. Cramdown legislation is always a product of craziness.

I think the news encourages this BS. How many times does the news report so-and-so member “caved” instead of reporting said member negotiated and compromised?

 

[larsIU]

I suspect it has, people get their "news" from Twitter which is part of problem.

But I heard a quote long ago, Americans would rather discuss the Yankees instead of the news. That is very accurate, and always has been. We have always had these citizens, it is fine. But now they can get their 10 minute fix from following the crazy people.

I saw the other day that the majority of people under 30 cite TikTok as their main news source. Yikes.

Podcast:

Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?

Derek shares his thoughts on the question of the moment in tech and tech politics: whether TikTok should be banned in the United States

www.theringer.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The problem with your statement is that crazy people work for the mainstream media now - they just hide their crazy better and hide behind once-powerful brand names.

Perhaps they were already there but they’ve been exposed now.

Everyone can see the Yankees with their own eyes and know what they see. I don’t believe anything the news shows me anymore unless it’s live footage of something happening. That’s how little I respect their journalism now. It’s turned to activism and it stinks.

It depends on what is mainstream. The sins of CNN/MSNBC/Fox is that they have become all advocacy all the time. There isn't that in the old-school network news. One might quibble over this or that, but it isn't someone out specifically rallying someone to their views.

Outrage sells and the cable news divisions have built an empire selling outrage. I don't see CBS/ABC/NBC having a host screaming at the audience about how terrible some slight is.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It depends on what is mainstream. The sins of CNN/MSNBC/Fox is that they have become all advocacy all the time. There isn't that in the old-school network news. One might quibble over this or that, but it isn't someone out specifically rallying someone to their views.

Outrage sells and the cable news divisions have built an empire selling outrage. I don't see CBS/ABC/NBC having a host screaming at the audience about how terrible some slight is.

Yes and no. 60 minutes has become as bad as msnbc etc

 

[Ohio Guy]

I'd argue that most people on this board probably pay more attention to politics than a lot of other people in the 'real' world. I think people generally have a sense of what's going on but at a very 30,000 foot view level.

I pay attention to state politics because I kind of have to and I do try to stay up on national politics as well.

For what it's worth, there are some good accounts on YouTube that do a good job of covering political stories. I think a few people have mentioned him here before, but David Pakman is a good follow. He'd be the first to tell you that he leans left and is certainly no fan of Trump, but for the most part his commentary and interviews are reasonable, fair and informative.

 

[mcmurtry66]

T

I saw the other day that the majority of people under 30 cite TikTok as their main news source. Yikes.

Podcast:

Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?

Derek shares his thoughts on the question of the moment in tech and tech politics: whether TikTok should be banned in the United States

www.theringer.com

TikTok cuts to the chase so you can get back to joining the influencer in dance. Headlines are usually enough to get the gist when scrolling. You want in depth and the truth then you need to visit the frontline with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. The commercials are every bit as valuable. EMP tactical gear. Gold. Weapons. Bug out buckets. In other words. The things we need

 

[larsIU]

T

TikTok cuts to the chase so you can get back to joining the influencer in dance. Headlines are usually enough to get the gist when scrolling. You want in depth and the truth then you need to visit the frontline with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. The commercials are every bit as valuable. EMP tactical gear. Gold. Weapons. Bug out buckets. In other words. The things we need

Taht pod was interesting. As he notes, imagine Russia buying ABC in 1976. No ****ing way we let that happen.

But.....now we do? Why?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Taht pod was interesting. As he notes, imagine Russia buying ABC in 1976. No ****ing way we let that happen.

But.....now we do? Why?

I don’t think our government is functioning very well. We just don’t have our finger on the pulse it seems. I hate Biden/Harris and crew but it obviously predates them. There was a ny times piece I cited a bunch during Covid that outlined just the gross negligence and total ineptitude of our fed agencies charged with responding to same. Obviously trump was unaware did no auditing qc and neither did congress etc.

I could be wrong but it’s my perception. Maybe gov is too big. Subject to inertia. Etc

 

[BadWakeboarder]

It depends on what is mainstream. The sins of CNN/MSNBC/Fox is that they have become all advocacy all the time. There isn't that in the old-school network news. One might quibble over this or that, but it isn't someone out specifically rallying someone to their views.

Outrage sells and the cable news divisions have built an empire selling outrage. I don't see CBS/ABC/NBC having a host screaming at the audience about how terrible some slight is.

Agreed. The problem is those networks’ share dwarfs that of the network news.

 

[UncleMark]

Outrage sells and the cable news divisions have built an empire selling outrage. I don't see CBS/ABC/NBC having a host screaming at the audience about how terrible some slight is.

People complained about the network news back in the day too. My Goldwater Republican parents bitched over it constantly. When Fox came about and pledged to be "Fair and Balanced", my folks became devoted followers. This was around the same time that Limbaugh got big, so they were set -- Rush on the radio during the afternoon, and Fox in the evening.

It was sad to watch in their waning years. Both had been optimistic, reasonably tolerant (for people of their age/generation), and civic minded. They ended up being cranky, hateful, and doctrinaire.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

It depends on what is mainstream. The sins of CNN/MSNBC/Fox is that they have become all advocacy all the time. There isn't that in the old-school network news. One might quibble over this or that, but it isn't someone out specifically rallying someone to their views.

Outrage sells and the cable news divisions have built an empire selling outrage. I don't see CBS/ABC/NBC having a host screaming at the audience about how terrible some slight is.

This is fvck'd up.

The problem is that the Leviathan can now pay these 'journalists' huge sums to NOT practice journalism, but to propagandize the American people. This 'advocacy' you describe is nothing but 'the narrative'.
Look at the Zionist genocide against a million children under the age of 18 in Gaza. This murder by starvation stops THE MOMENT the American $300 million weekly grift stops.

Ukraine is ten times worse.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

I saw the other day that the majority of people under 30 cite TikTok as their main news source. Yikes.

Podcast:

Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?

Derek shares his thoughts on the question of the moment in tech and tech politics: whether TikTok should be banned in the United States

www.theringer.com

And they are increasingly against the Zionist's genocide of Gazan children.

 

[dr.jb]

The news sucks.

I hate watching the news

it's always bad

 

[BradStevens]

Yes, the link below is on Trump, but here is what I found interesting:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.​

...​

The ten-minute-per-week figure is why, according to Ian Smith, the news event that Americans heard about the most last year—a year that included the first indictment of a former president, the rare ousting of a House speaker amidst worsening Republican dysfunction, and gruesome wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—was actually the Chinese spy balloon.​

​

Now I know people will object to the rest of the article (or applaud it). But it isn't my point. The Spy Balloon was the best-known news story of 2013 is curious compared to Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. If people are spending 10 minutes per week on news, what gets through.

I did see something that ties to that. A longtime Democratic operative in advertising has retired with dementia setting in. He wrote a book, and in it he suggested political ads around a person are useless. People today think only in terms of party, so ads should be directed at party. He may well be right. If he is, have we gone to parliamentary voting without the rest of the system?

A few random observations:

1. Most "political" news sucks. During campaigns it's all about the horse race, very little devoted to policy positions, analyzing what those might mean, chances of success for the policy, etc. Even things about the House Republicans and the Speaker, who cares? So I don't think that's alarming.

2. People might say they aren't consuming "news" because they aren't reading an obvious news source--TV, print, or news outlet website. But I'd guess many people actually are consuming news via Twitter, Facebook, memes, etc. and aren't reporting as such.

3. That last part is probably right and really scary to me. Signs of tribalism writ large.

 

[BradStevens]

And they are increasingly against the Zionist's genocide of Gazan children.

What's happening in Gaza isn't genocide.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

What's happening in Gaza isn't genocide.

What would you call intentionally starving one million Palestinian children under the age of 18?
Self-fvcking defense?

 

[BradStevens]

What would you call intentionally starving one million Palestinian children under the age of 18?
Self-fvcking defense?

According to WHO, 10 children have died due to starvation/malnutrition since the start of the conflict.

Children starving to death in northern Gaza - WHO

The World Health Organisation chief says 10 children have died due to lack of food in northern Gaza.

www.bbc.com

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

The question was: What would you call starving children to death?

Did you read the article you posted?

 

[BradStevens]

The question was: What would you call starving children to death?

Did you read the article you posted?

No, the question you posed was what do you call intentional starvation within the context of the definition of genocide (which assumes killings) of one million children?

First, 10 million children haven't died so you're off by 5 orders of magnitude.

Second, Israel isn't intending to starve Palestinian children, that's a byproduct of the war. You have no evidence their strategy is to starve one million children. Were the Allies involved in genocide against Germans in WW 2, for example?

Third, the very fact that 1 million children live in Gaza (out of less than 3 million total people) proves the Gazans are procreating at a rapid clip. If the Israelis were intent on committing genocide and wiping Gaza off the map and their populace with it, how could that be? Compare the rates of procreation of jews in Nazi Germany?

The human toll this war is taking is awful. I place the full weight of the moral blame for it on Hamas and the radical, fascist, fundamentalist Islamists, just as I place the entire moral weight of the human tragedy on civilian Germans during and after WW 2 on Hitler and the Nazis.

And yes, I did read the article I posted.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

No, the question you posed was what do you call intentional starvation within the context of the definition of genocide (which assumes killings) of one million children?

First, 10 million children haven't died so you're off by 5 orders of magnitude.

Second, Israel isn't intending to starve Palestinian children, that's a byproduct of the war. You have no evidence their strategy is to starve one million children. Were the Allies involved in genocide against Germans in WW 2, for example?

Third, the very fact that 1 million children live in Gaza (out of less than 3 million total people) proves the Gazans are procreating at a rapid clip. If the Israelis were intent of committing genocide and wiping Gaza off the map and their populace with it, how could that be? Compare the rates of procreation of jews in Nazi Germany?

The human toll this war is taking is awful. I place the full weight of the moral blame for it on Hamas and the radical, fascist, fundamentalist Islamists, just as I place the entire moral weight of the human tragedy on civilian Germans during and after WW 2 on Hitler and the Nazis.

And yes, I did read the article I posted.

You are quite comfortable blaming the victims, one million children under 18, for their own deaths and deprivation .

.."moral weight"..

You're disgusting.

 

[BradStevens]

You are quite comfortable blaming the victims, one million children under 18, for their own deaths and deprivation .

.."moral weight"..

You're disgusting.

Except that I didn't blame the one million children under 18. Here, I'll cut and paste who I blamed since you missed it. I'll even bold it in case your eyesight is failing:

"I place the full weight of the moral blame for it on Hamas and the radical, fascist, fundamentalist Islamists."

Of course, your name calling is the telltale sign you've lost the argument. It's too bad: I thought you had the capacity to argue against points, not people. I know I've extended you that courtesy in the past.