The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)
User: Not logged on
Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info DNI Fails To Find Its Ass With Both Hands; entered at 2017-01-07 18:56:13
Posts: 474
Registered: 2012-12-05 Huntsville, AL
As one who holds "extreme prejudice" toward math abuse, I find the content on pp. 10-11 to be rather bothersome.
ICA wrote..
According to RT management, RT's website receives at least 500,000 unique viewers every day. Since
its inception in 2005, RT videos received more than 800 million views on
YouTube(1 million views per day), which is the highest among news outlets (see graphics for comparison with other news channels)

ICA is claiming that "since inception in 2005" RT has enjoyed 800 million "video" views, and that said total is roughly one million views per day. Now, I don't let statements such as that go without exercising my brain at least for a short time.

"Annex A: Russia -- Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US*" has an original publication date of 11 December 2012, indicating that the measurement span is far greater than "800 days". Oddly, on that date, it had been at least 2,881 days since any day in 2005. (It works out to fewer than 280,000 views per day in that context.)

That is the sort of sloppiness I simply refuse to pass unchallenged. If "roughly one million views per day" and "800 million views" have any credibility when taken together, then elementary school arithmetic has lost any possible meaning without a far more comprehensive explanation of what is supposed to be demonstrated. "A text without a context is likely to be a pretext."

Likewise the "graphic" on p. 11, comparing RT's "video views" count with some other outlets', is used without any context clues regarding how to interpret it. There is no time frame stated or implied, no legend, no explanatory note. Am I to assume that all four outlets view count covers the same time frame (that of RT's existence)? Or is it something else entirely?

For these causes and others, I "assess" that ICA's unclassified statement is so "unlikely" that I can assign no higher a "judgment" to it than that I have zero "confidence" in its veracity in the whole or in any particular. That's not the information I seek, and I'll just "move along".
2017-01-07 18:56:13