"My point? Simple: we live in an era of non-contiguous information streams. I believe one thing; someone else believes another â€“ and the bedrock assumptions are utterly contradictory. This is what drives me nuts about discussing current events with some people. Itâ€™s like discussing the Apollo program with people who think it was all faked, or discussing archeology with those who believe the world is six thousand years old. I think the Iraq Campaign was part of a broad war against Islamicist fascism and the states that enable it; others think itâ€™s all about oil and Halliburton jerking the strings of a Jeebus puppet. No. Middle. Ground. "
NCIS = noncontiguous information streams, if you forget. I think there's a show on CBS about this... heh.
I'm a part of this, too, preferentially reading Lileks to Josh Micah Marshall. When it's late and you're tired, you want to read someone you agree with, not someone who introduces uncomfortable facts or opinions that need to be reconciled. Plus, when you DO debate a friend or person at the bar, you want to have your stats and figures and sense of indignation ready, not be a mealy-mouthed equivocationalist.
I'd like to think this situation is unstable and will resolve, but it's been going on for a while. I thought the resolution would take the form of marginalization -- eventually the party that has espoused crazy ideas about Apollo or creationism or Halliburton will fade into bolivian (as Mike Tyson says). But five years ago the Republicans were convinced Clinton killed Vince Foster and bombed Iraq to distract the nation from Monica. They were espousing some kooky ideas then, but they didn't fade away.
My idea is that there's still a market for the Equivocation Channel -- where reporters file back-to-back reports, same facts, but the first is in the tone of shrill victimized liberals, the second in the smug triumphalism of conservatives. Viewers will watch both and just decide which one 'feels true'.