Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the
best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from
coming into power.
I agree that public discussion is a powerful tool for changing people's political opinions - but if I think I'm reading a discussion between your peers when I'm actually reading a discussion between two Kremlin trolls, it puts the powerful tool in the hands of people who don't have my best interests in mind.
It's a tough problem to solve - most of the 'obvious' solutions like real name policies I think come with a lot of downsides.
[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvvz3/russian-fa...
I think the biggest problem is that it only works when the other side is willing to play by the rules of the game. If the opposition is willing to blatantly lie even in the face of direct evidence then the normal rules of debate just break down. (I know all politicians lie, but Trump's disregard for political norms is completely different from what you got from candidates like McCain, Obama, Romney or Bush).
Similarly from a UK perspective giving disproportionate coverage to UKIP and Farage just increased their popularity.
Isn't this just an example of the same phenomenon I was describing? Sure, they gave him airtime, but it was virtually never positive. There was a tremendous lack of impartiality in the media's coverage of the two candidates. This led to the idea of "fake news" and ended up boosting his supporters even more, giving them reason to band together.
I dare say the outcome of the election could have been different if the media had spent less time trying to demonize Trump and simply reported equally on the two candidates with minimal editorializing.
What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?
It's not. They're reporting on what Trump did. If that's mostly negative, then the coverage is, by necessity, going to be mostly negative. You wouldn't be upset that most of the coverage now of Harvey Weinstein or Louis C.K. is negative, would you?
"If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that."
That's what they did.
"There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate."
That's been a tradition for editorial boards for a long time. Note: That's the editorial, or opinion board. Not the newsroom.
"What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?"
Well, for one, everyone knew the same things about Trump, and yet he was elected. But you're really going to have to prove that what you're asking for didn't happen.
Example:
A lot of folks are flabbergasted at /r/The_Donald, but I've always contended that that subreddit exists and developed into its current culture precisely because right-leaning opinions are treated so harshly on most of the rest of reddit. In other words, there was a feeling of suppression and censorship, which leads to the sort of high-energy, irreverent "shit-posting" that is the mainstay of /r/The_Donald.