I'll just add one observation about it. The article talks about rational audiences because it is based around this paper, which uses a game-theoretic model. It is ironic that the article goes up at The Conversation while I am in the middle of a loooooong, drawn-out series here called "Assessing democracy..." about how the 2016 election was a failure of rational choice theory.
Three ways to take this:
1) Even if news audiences were rational, that wouldn't save us from the problems I was describing in the article at The Conversation and the boring, academic paper it references.
2) 2016 was sort of a uniquely problematic election, in some respects, as I have been describing in the "Assessing democracy..." series here.
3) The old, George E.P. Box line: All models are wrong, some are useful.
Anyway, so I write different stuff in different contexts. Sue me.
PS: Don't sue me.
