If I'm understanding the point you're making, it's a good one.
Concomitant with this "inability" to disagree is this post-truth phenomenon wherein everyone is free to construct their own reality. Nothing gets through; not facts, not logic. Nothing.
There's a little ink spilled bemoaning this fact in the article. But it's painted in the context of advocacy for good journalism and is so meek as to essentially form a footnote.
But, the whole of his complaint rests on this deficiency. It's not possible to constructively disagree with someone who is unwilling to acknowledge basic facts, or who promotes an alternate reality.
Concomitant with this "inability" to disagree is this post-truth phenomenon wherein everyone is free to construct their own reality. Nothing gets through; not facts, not logic. Nothing.
There's a little ink spilled bemoaning this fact in the article. But it's painted in the context of advocacy for good journalism and is so meek as to essentially form a footnote.
But, the whole of his complaint rests on this deficiency. It's not possible to constructively disagree with someone who is unwilling to acknowledge basic facts, or who promotes an alternate reality.