Quote from Tsing Tao:
I don't think it's a stretch to say that people, when faced with data that doesn't jive with their preconceived notion of what should be, disregard the data way before they would consider their position could possibly be flawed.
Very few people are open to debate (correct debate) and are able to have their opinions changed. It takes effort to allow your opponent the chance to sway your views, and an effort to remain civil during the exchange.
Mostly because people who don't want to change because they have a vested interest in maintaining their current opinion. The reasons are sometimes political, religious, financial, etc. But mostly, it's ego.
Changing their views means they might appear weak, indecisive, wishy-washy, or just plain different from their peer group. They run the risk of being ostracized from the group. And being ostracized is worse than standing up for their beliefs, for what's right, especially for women. There's comfort of being in a group.
Then you get to the politicians. The alleged decision makers. Any politician knows, either from experience or wisdom passed on by mentors/advisors, that stating an raw, unsanitized opinion is political suicide. Politicians are in it for their egos. They have no overriding need/desire/motivation to do the right thing. They're seduced by the power, the prestige, the money. Their sole interest is getting elected, and staying elected.
In the hands of a skilled interrogator, a politician's position on any major issue, be it immigration, labor, health care, abortion, etc., can be skillfully led down a path where, by choosing simple A or B answers, they eventually will reach a point where their position is flipped 180 degrees, in direct violation of their beliefs, values, and political platform.
Staying elected means being non-committal and not saying the wrong thing to any one at any time. Especially reporters...