I think there's a set of presumptions made when you join a side (a matter which need not be a straightforward conscious act) : the first has to be the believing in the relative rightness of that side which then provides justifiability to your actions in defending or supporting it or otherwise furthering its agenda. This often requires a dismissal of any deeper reflection and a constant reiteration or reassertion of the superficial: the perfect job description of an establishment "journalist". When Gershom Scholem questioned Hannah Arendt on her well known phrase "The banality of evil" her reply speaks of this:
“...You are quite right, I changed my mind and do no longer speak of “radical evil.” … It is indeed my opinion now that evil is never “radical,” that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like a fungus on the surface. It is “thought-defying,” as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its “banality.” Only the good has depth that can be radical."