There is a simple reason for this. The necessary ingredient in a news story is a conflict of some kind, and the people who feel misled recognize that the confli

There is a simple reason for this. The necessary ingredient in a news story is a conflict of some kind, and the people who feel misled recognize that the conflicts that news orgs present, decorated by mostly real facts, are synthetic, the product of an ideology. In a story, there's a figure-ground relationship between facts and the tension between them, and the people very-concerned about "alternative facts" don't get that others don't believe them not because of the disinformation on the internet, but because they register to us as liars who sprinkle some facts as palatable icing over an underlying lie derived from an ideology designed to produce cheap conflict. In a moral sense, news that uses synthetic conflict sourced from ideology is in effect, false witness. To me, anything problematic or anti-problematic is a synthetic conflict generated from underlying pre-problematizations. One doesn't have to agree with this assessment to understand it, but pretending to be mystified as to why a majority of Americans don't agree with them only makes the divide irreconcilable, imo.