> I guess I shouldn't be at this point, but I'm always surprised that the people posting the misinformation aren't terribly embarrassed about it when it's reve

> I guess I shouldn't be at this point, but I'm always surprised that the people posting the misinformation aren't terribly embarrassed about it when it's revealed. When things become hyperpartisan, people can't see this revelation. When people read articles like this, I wouldn't be surprised if the reaction is mostly "Yes, I can't believe those people who disagree with me do this," and not a reflection on their own behavior. You can see this if you follow any political argument online. No one believes that the someone on an opposing side could have a valid argument, or could correctly point out their mistake. If a third-party observer tries to point out a mistake, people will usually cast them as the enemy and accuse them of spreading falsehoods. Walter Lippmann's excellent Public Opinion points out how it's difficult for people to be both interested in a topic and neutral. This excerpt touches on the issue: > "It has been said" writes Walter Bagehot, [Footnote: On the Emotion of Conviction, Literary Studies, Vol. Ill, p. 172.] "that if you can only get a middleclass Englishman to think whether there are 'snails in Sirius,' he will soon have an opinion on it. It will be difficult to make him think, but if he does think, he cannot rest in a negative, he will come to some decision. And on any ordinary topic, of course, it is so. A grocer has a full creed as to foreign policy, a young lady a complete theory of the sacraments, as to which neither has any doubt whatever."