Post by Bret Cahill
A study isn't really necessary -- just critical thinking and a macro approach.
For example, Shultzberger X will disingenuously ask, "which article or several articles do you disagree with?"
The answer to that is another question:
"Can you make a pretty good square wave out of hundreds of sin curves? [Nice try buddy but it's not just one or several articles.]" For example, no single article needs to explicitly state, "Pat Robertson's brand of fundamentalism came over on the Mayflower" for the overwhelming majority of _NY Times_ readers to eventually come to believe Pat Robertson came over on the Mayflower.
Sleazeberger X is busy doing the equivalent of adjusting the phase angle and frequency on every sin curve then feigning innocence, "where is the square curve article? Where? I double dare you. Most eber article we print is a smooth sin wave!"
Sleazeberger knows full well what he's doing in the macro, revising U. S. political history on any issue in a way that helps the billionaires.
Why do the media like the goobers believing fundamentalism is part of the *esprit general* of the U. S.? Obviously they are trying to hide their own culpability in their astro springering fundamentalism in the 1960s along with 2nd Amend. rights, etc.
In fact the _NY Times_ revises U. S. political history on _any_ issue that helps the billionaires.
A few historians and political scientists may wonder about the ignorance of _NY Times_ readers on political history but they probably don't know _how_ it is being done. Even if they knew the correction wouldn't get published in the _Times_.
To save the biosphere climate science will sooner or later realize they need to deal with the shill media. On the macro.
Political "science" is closer to a science than many physical scientists think.
Legacy media already must spend a lot of time tripping over the false notions that have built up on their floors.
We can speed this up.
Post by Bret Cahill
These Koch billionaires can pop NY Times, Newsweek, Time, CBS, NPR, CNN fanny any time they discuss progressive carbon taxation.
That's why you never see any articles or editorials on any politically _possible_ carbon abatement proposals. When they _do_ admit to CAGW it's only, "poor folk gonna starve."
The shill media industry is so highly competitive that they actually _like_ social media pointing out that they are presstitutes.
They consider it word of mouth advertising.
"A bidness w/o a sign is a sign of no bidness."