I agree with majority of what you’ve said. I think we are, predominantly, in agreement. Or at the very least we would overlap from time to time. I’ll skip on the John Oliver details because so much of what these programs focus on with research is telling you what to think by framing facts, omitting details and derailing discussions. I’ll focus on the other bits.

Both the nutty conspiracists and the people nodding along and cheering with TV shows fall to the same kind of self inflicted ignorance: their biases get the best of them and they won’t look for counter arguments or entertain alternative viewpoints or possibilities. Now, I don’t care about what biases those are in particular, but it’s worthwhile to ask both sets of people, upon listening to them make their case/statement, a somewhat simplistic and mildly derogatory question: “where did you hear that?” because both sets are looking elsewhere for authority on what to think or believe.

Many a time I’ve had to reel peoples fantastical takes in by plainly stating back to them their sources and walking them through the narrative they’ve constructed in their head and listening to people who - in many cases - are even in a lesser position to obtain accurate enough facts to make a solid case. Not the most welcoming party trick but it does work to help wake people up from a self-inflicted trance.

I’m reminded in all of this by the usefulness of something like an LSAT, where it’s asking you to recite back minute details of what has been said or happened, or what has not been said and therefore is presumptuous, without necessarily forming an opinion along the way.

You raise a good point on having to soften a hardline stance and trust people putting in the work.