Those who read very little are the ones vulnerable to manipulation

I always make sure to read the article headlines, so I should be good /s

The Super Bowl was pre-taped four months ago in the same Nevada hangar where they faked the moon landing.

Even audio books, the authors point out, are not the equivalent of reading but a poor substitute for it.

I'd love to see the data that they have to backup this claim. I remember reading a while back that listening to an audiobook gets all the same mental benefits of reading a book, as long as you are reading above a 5th grade level (basically sounding out words).

It sounds to me, that the issue is less with people reading, the article mentions that people do read, and more to do with a lack of critical thought about what is being read.

It really frustrates me that people, even very successful and capable people I know, take pride in finding every excuse they could to not read a book. Reading critically is how you learn about the world, but whenever I ask people to read a book so we can talk about it, it's always "I'm too busy, give me a short summary instead"

First, if factory workers 100 years ago who worked 16 hour days can still find time to read, you can too; Second, if I know how to summarize an entire book into a paragraph and have it convey the full meaning of the book, I wouldn't be telling you to read it.

Ignorance is a choice.

We live in an era of fake news, conspiracy theories, distortions and disinformation, simplifications and outright lies, assiduously spread by our rulers to compromise society’s capacity for informed democratic decision-making. We need all the more to be able to critically interrogate what’s around us, and that comes with experience in engaging with the content and language of texts we read. Those who read very little are the ones vulnerable to manipulation by false and motivated WhatsApp forwards.

The scholar-authors conclude that reading skills and practices are “the foundation for full participation in the economic, political, communal and cultural life of contemporary society”, including “social, cultural and political engagement” as much as “personal liberation, emancipation and empowerment”. A healthy democratic society that requires “the informed consensus of a multi-stakeholder and multi-cultural society” also needs resilient readers, they argue.

I used to read 2-3 books a week, but between work, kids, keeping my house in order, I have so few contiguous time blocks for leisure reading that I'm lucky if I finish a book in a month or two. I do read a TON of books with my kids while putting them to bed, I just don't count those for myself.

So almost the entirety of the US then?

Plot twist: those who read were just manipulated into thinking they're not vulnerable to manipulation!

Ironically, I didn't read this. But, I think the premise is dubious in that text is only a medium. Hell, text itself can range from tabloid articles to research papers.
How is "reading" any different from "watching", or "listening"? It's all about quality of the material, not how to consume the media.

What is the difference in reading a book vs reading a news article, blog, forum comments, etc? What makes a book superior to other forms of written text? You're reading words put down by a human being (and not AI in either case, hopefully) for various reasons; to entertain, to inform, to shock, to inspire...

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Conservatives are the ones vulnerable to manipulation.

.

The headline contains 11 words. The summary contains 7 words. Conservatives are profoundly unintelligent.

Whaaaaat???