The author listed two sources, both of which were not very credible. Relying on other "reporters" as sources is not unbiased at all. Who is this Mark Knoller guy? Simply because he is a veteran reporter does not make him a reliable source who keeps accurate records. And who is Julie Mason? A "longtime White House reporter"... for what publication. All her quotes were pure opinion. The author also blatantly tried to dismiss the press conferences that President Obama DID have.

Who are these critics from "both sides"? You can't make a claim and then only include one critic.

The reporting was good in this story, getting quotes from both sides of the story and from credible sources. However, the title was misleading. Though the reporting suggests that there are critics on both sides of the story, the title and lede suggest otherwise.

This article is extremely disjointed. Perhaps this is due to the actual execution of the study, but the article left me confused. The title was misleading because the study didn't claim the Internet will make you smarter.. the participants believed this. The study also didn't explain how they classified an "expert" versus someone who wasn't an expert.

I thought this story was factual because it reported on what conservatives said without imparting too much opinion. I would have liked to have read a quote from a scientist who was adamant that global warming was linked to carbon emissions. This would have given another perspective.