This is exactly what happened in the late XIX century, when first mass media appeared, and did about the same: they'd cherry-pick evidence to support their prio

This is exactly what happened in the late XIX century, when first mass media appeared, and did about the same: they'd cherry-pick evidence to support their prior opinions and painted the oposite side as villains. Dreyfus affair was the highlight of that phoenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair Unfortunately, same thing is happening with YouTube bloggers right now: I checked economists of 3 different kinds, and all of them would mostly pick the other's argument, exaggerate it to absurdity, then blame the opponent being socialist/social darwinist/nazi/anarchist/etc. Most of audience enjoys simple confirmation of their views, and accepts whatever is put in its favor: pure theorizing, demagogic questions, anectdotal evidence and cherry-picked data. Many reject any evidence that puts their worldview under stress -- I personally had this moment with friends, who'd just claim "this is not important, X is always Y, and Y > Z."