That seems basically right. I wouldn't have called the Gallup interview the source but I think you're probably right about the paper and the explanation of the difference between what she said and the paper.

▲

didibus 4 days ago | parent [-]

> I wouldn't have called the Gallup interview the source

We're probably arguing semantics, but why not?

▲

glenstein 4 days ago | parent [-]

You can object to data and methodology of a study in a way you can't to a quotation. And oberien was clear about what they were asking for from the beginning.

	▲	didibus 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It really wasn't clear to me. My first read was that they wanted to fact check what they heard, and were not able too. And my second read was that they were more interested in figuring out why 23 minutes and 15 seconds is the precise number being parroted. And now on my third read, I'm still unsure what exactly they're asking for. If they knew about the study showing 25 minutes, and the interview, what more are they asking?