You can't simply ask one question and have your answer. I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-environment and pro-military. What does that make me according to your standard?

I probably took a wrong turn by likening homogeneity to the base instead of the politicians, but there are studies that suggest that as polarization among the elites has increased, the constituents have followed. It's not really difficult to probe the average person to find out their political leaning. You just listed 3 out of 4 positions that align with the Republican platform. Chances are, if we happened upon a political topic, I could guess your leaning based on your response. I think every person could find some position that could justify them claiming to be moderate. This is because most people aren't extremists. The truth is that most people (including the posters here), have nuanced positions. 

A major contributor to our polarization is the way we consume news. Who has time to research everything? Most people don't even watch or read the news. They rely on headlines to give them a general feel for what's going on in the world. When you couple this with the idea that news agencies basically serve as a branch of their respective parties, you get cherry picked information that is not being scrutinized, but politicized. 

Add this to the fact that many people will actually begin to derive their sense of self from their team. It's called social identity theory. So, in our current political climate, you have political elites that encourage team politics and use "journalism" to reinforce a homogeneous platform. Most people have to choose a team based on the one that best represent them. They start consuming news that reinforces their position. Then they begin to build an identity around that team, and, as that identity grows, begin to adopt more and more of the team policies. The worst part is the political elites know they are doing this. The media also knows the role they play. It's not hidden anymore.

This sounds like a bunch of lapdogs, which I am not. I am one of those who will research stuff because too much fake news makes me distrust most sources of media. 

I feel for those who look to the news and/or politicians to tell them who they are, how to think, what is right and wrong, etc. I don't need nor want people telling me what to do, how to live, what my opinion should be. I'm more libertarian than anything. Minus the making prostitution and illicit drugs legal thing.

---

I don't know if that's really fair. There is something called the "retrospective theory of voting." Basically, what this says is that people are pretty good at judging the effectiveness of an administration. Even if someone doesn't follow politics closely, they are able to weigh the impact any administration is having on their personal lives. I am not sure this works in the modern era for a couple reasons.

To begin, the media used to hold itself to a higher objective standard, for the most part. You will find that in the early years of the United States, the media was hyper partisan, but that was less important then, because the nation functioned more like a republic and less like a democracy. There were stricter limitations on voting, and those who were given that power tended to exercise it more judiciously. That didn't last super long, though. As voting rights expanded, and laws changed the way we voted for senators and chose the electoral college, the US became more democratic. Fortunately, the mainstream media became better at it's job and papers would editorialize less. People relied on newspapers to give them informative information, and they were only getting that information once a day (at best). Even if they didn't consume news, they would see a few headlines and be able to draw conclusions based on that limited information. This meant people were actually more dependent on seeing how the world was changing around them than they were on media to some degree, which leads me to my second point.

The media has fundamentally changed, as has the way we consume it. Now, the "news" is finding it's way to people constantly, via Facebook, Twitter, 24 hour news cycles, etc. Add to the fact that it is now almost all hyper partisan, and you get a populace that can no longer stay informed while they are carrying out their daily lives. The truth is that most people are too busy to follow politics closely. They are too busy being good husbands, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, employees, etc. They have to take care of their homes and cares. They have other hobbies they are working on. There is a trade off to everything. It's hard to stay abreast of these topics and function normally. I believe that most people have relied on headlines to give them a snapshot of what is going on, and now that those are frequent and extremely partisan, most people are either checking out or becoming more partisan themselves.

I spend an inordinate amount of time following the trends of American politics. Much more so than the average American. Even then, I struggle to get into the "weeds" of policy. I mostly follow the cultural trends of our political landscape, because that is what most concerns me, and I think that is true for most other people as well. I dig a little bit deeper, but it's the "weeds" that really inform one's position on what's going on. This is true from local politics to federal politics. As a side note, I'd also like to mention that I think Americans generally don't concern themselves with local politics, which is where most policy decisions were designed to be made. I think this could be a major contributing factor to feeling like one doesn't have a "voice," but that's a different discussion.

We need to fundamentally change our news now that we consume it differently. We really need to unite and hold our media to a higher standard. I think making them non-profit is a good start. I think opening up libel laws and having harsher punitive measures for false or extremely misleading journalism would also help. I think creating a journalistic standard, similar to the scientific method, that limits bias would also be a worthwhile endeavor. I think abolishing the AP would also help. Make newspapers and reporters have to get their own stories. Create competition again in media.

---

I don't know if that's really fair. There is something called the "retrospective theory of voting." Basically, what this says is that people are pretty good at judging the effectiveness of an administration. Even if someone doesn't follow politics closely, they are able to weigh the impact any administration is having on their personal lives. I am not sure this works in the modern era for a couple reasons.

To begin, the media used to hold itself to a higher objective standard, for the most part. You will find that in the early years of the United States, the media was hyper partisan, but that was less important then, because the nation functioned more like a republic and less like a democracy. There were stricter limitations on voting, and those who were given that power tended to exercise it more judiciously. That didn't last super long, though. As voting rights expanded, and laws changed the way we voted for senators and chose the electoral college, the US became more democratic. Fortunately, the mainstream media became better at it's job and papers would editorialize less. People relied on newspapers to give them informative information, and they were only getting that information once a day (at best). Even if they didn't consume news, they would see a few headlines and be able to draw conclusions based on that limited information. This meant people were actually more dependent on seeing how the world was changing around them than they were on media to some degree, which leads me to my second point.

The media has fundamentally changed, as has the way we consume it. Now, the "news" is finding it's way to people constantly, via Facebook, Twitter, 24 hour news cycles, etc. Add to the fact that it is now almost all hyper partisan, and you get a populace that can no longer stay informed while they are carrying out their daily lives. The truth is that most people are too busy to follow politics closely. They are too busy being good husbands, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, employees, etc. They have to take care of their homes and cares. They have other hobbies they are working on. There is a trade off to everything. It's hard to stay abreast of these topics and function normally. I believe that most people have relied on headlines to give them a snapshot of what is going on, and now that those are frequent and extremely partisan, most people are either checking out or becoming more partisan themselves.

I spend an inordinate amount of time following the trends of American politics. Much more so than the average American. Even then, I struggle to get into the "weeds" of policy. I mostly follow the cultural trends of our political landscape, because that is what most concerns me, and I think that is true for most other people as well. I dig a little bit deeper, but it's the "weeds" that really inform one's position on what's going on. This is true from local politics to federal politics. As a side note, I'd also like to mention that I think Americans generally don't concern themselves with local politics, which is where most policy decisions were designed to be made. I think this could be a major contributing factor to feeling like one doesn't have a "voice," but that's a different discussion.

We need to fundamentally change our news now that we consume it differently. We really need to unite and hold our media to a higher standard. I think making them non-profit is a good start. I think opening up libel laws and having harsher punitive measures for false or extremely misleading journalism would also help. I think creating a journalistic standard, similar to the scientific method, that limits bias would also be a worthwhile endeavor. I think abolishing the AP would also help. Make newspapers and reporters have to get their own stories. Create competition again in media.

Your diagnosis is spot on, but I think if we tried to follow that last paragraph any time during the next decade or so, it would only make things worse.

Other countries are having these same issues with social media driving distrust in elites and polarization.  If you give any central authority the power to police bias, change the content of news publications, that authority will inevitably merge with government and begin using its power to prop up the current regime.  The only role for government regarding the press, in my opinion, is punishing news that is blatantly false.  "Misleading" is too loose of a standard.

AP does some of the best work out there. Third parties always rate their work as middle of the road in terms of bias.

I think trying to use government pressure or boycotts or demonstrations to obtain better behavior from the media is pushing on string. as long as we have free speech, there are going to be people saying things that we would rather they didn't say, and they are going to be neighbors of ours nodding along and subscribing to them.

Instead, I would step back to your diagnosis and see if we can change other aspects of the situation. I think the process of electing senators should be less direct. I think the process of electing governors should be less direct. And the process of electing the president should be less direct. I think we need to establish clearer areas where state and local authorities can make decisions without the federal government having authority to step in.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.