Journalists, however, too often seem to believe that audiences can’t handle complexity. There are exceptions, but a vast majority of journalism actively avoids it. Or we quote both sides and think that’s complexity. Like television writers, we are searching for a compelling story, but we tend to find it in the clash of the shrillest sound bites rather than in the fine distinctions that transmit important truths. If we have details or quotes that don’t fit the narrative, we often strip them out.

It’s not fake news. It is all based on facts. But much too often it presents the most cartoonish and reductive picture of a very intricate world.

The consequences of this are severe. It increases polarization. Both Republicans and Democrats believe that people from the other party are more extreme than they really are — and that’s because journalists tend to present the extreme voices. People’s views are not one-dimensional, and there’s a lot we agree on. (A majority of Republicans favor regulating carbon emissions, for example.) But that doesn’t get reported, while conflict does.

It’s one reason the partisan gap is wider than it has ever been, with nearly half of each party holding a “very unfavorable” view of the other party. But curiously, they hate each other whether or not they disagree about policies. It’s our identity as a liberal or a conservative that counts. In reporting on the findings, The Intercept compared it to a team sports mentality: What could a Red Sox fan possibly learn that would turn him into a Yankees fan?

When people feel attacked, they get defensive, close down and go on the attack themselves. They stop listening.