The words “assumption” and “assertion” is key here.
Once upon a time, you could read the right of centre press and although you might disagree ideologically, the case was put in a clear and rational way (Daily Mail and Sun excepted). You agreed to disagree, but the arguments stuck to basic rules of conduct.
When you look at the politics of Trump, Brexit and post-Cameron conservatism, the right seem to have abandoned the platform of rationale – I’ll quote a conversation between a journalist and Newt Gingrich which went along these lines (forgive my paraphrasing):
Journalist: You know that Americans are safer than ever before with violent crime falling, don’t you?
Gingrich: No, they’re not.
Journalist: I have here the statistics to prove it. Crime rates have fallen across the board. Americans are less likely to be victims of violent crime.
Gingrich: But Americans don’t feel safer.
There’s been a conscious shift in the narrative to strengthen the soundbites of the right wing press with assertions, not fact. It’s almost as if the political right has abandoned the centre ground and has eschewed the evidence presented by experts and irrefutable, peer reviewed political science.
There’s a reason why I regularly challenge he who must not be mentioned to present facts to back up his assertions. He knows perfectly well that his assertions are on the surface utterly meaningless, which in the context of STW crosses the line between lively debate and repeated trolling designed to provoke a negative response.