They just chose to listen/trust on different media than you. Does that make them stupid?

Your first post was pretty good but I'm not sure what your point is anymore.

Not all media is equal when it comes to the depth of subject matter. Tabloid papers, for instance, are prone to telling things in handy bite-sized chunks, often relying on emotive rather than descriptive language. Many use headlines to attempt to engage their story to their readers too.

Now, I'm sure not everybody who reads broadsheets reads the whole article either but the quality of reporting in those newspapers, while not perfect, is definitely of a higher standard. Surely you're not going to deny that?

If you look up, there's a great discussion on this page about the lack of critical thinking skills in this whole thing, which I think is the root of the problem. There was a lot of speculation with no definite outcomes but that only established the point that if you were going to get involved in this issue then you required the ability to piece a lot of different elements and sources to get a rounded viewpoint.

What's controversial about saying it's stupid not doing that and instead being taking in by the emotive language that the media sources opting for Leave (for their own personal benefit might I add) went for?