I don't think it's a failure to describe how it works so much as a long running publicity campaign dedicated to circulating inaccurate but emotive claims. There's a small army of people who get paid to write op-eds about small farmers being forced of their land by the cruel gubmint etc. etc., just there is about many other fake controversies, from tobacco to fossil fuels.

You can explain how things work until you're blue in the face but it's not very effective if there's someone who's perfectly happy to lie, whether implicitly or (increasingly) explicitly. An awkward fact about propaganda and publicity campaigns is that the people who are articulating them don't necessarily need to believe in them, or even have others believe in them (though that helps). Professing the belief publicly can be an effective social signal for recognizing and cooperating with peers, as wella s identifying antagonists - think of the delight some political actors have in 'triggering' those with whom they disagree. One does not need to care about the issue oneself; political currency can be made out of simply upsetting other people, for both identification and entertainment purposes.