This is contrary to the article, you're assuming everyone involved scanned the deluge of information and the only "rational" result would be to come to the same conclusion about an insanely complex situation as you did, whereas the article argues that there's so much information and so many dots that people scan the same wealth of data and come to different conclusions.
Ok, but I think my point still stands: Thinking we'll arrive at a cohesive, shared worldview seems like wishful thinking at this point. Maybe there was a golden age in the post-war period, say in the 70s, when a cohesive, shared world view kind of existed in the US, but we're well past that now.
