Hate is an emotional response. Maybe the journalists in the media might be required back up their ambiguous commentary on a public emotion with regulated eviden

Hate is an emotional response. Maybe the journalists in the media might be required back up their ambiguous commentary on a public emotion with regulated evidence and statistics demonstrating the quantity and/or quality of the emotion. It could make very clear how tenuous some truth claims are, in the infinitely credible state and corporate media we all observe. "Hate" evidenced from a 4chan troll board is of a quantity and quality different to "hate" sourced from a senator's or CEO's mouth. Why are emotional ideas allowed to be vaguely and uncritically reported?