Published or publicly available content
compromised for the author's ideology or finances but which they
almost always contend is for preventing some universal
existential threat. Is virtually confirmed when, failing to expand the reach of their message through rational debate, the author hypocritically disparages the very notion of people doing their own research. At this point, the author is guilty of third degree lying, concerning reckless disregard for telling the truth, and the mesearch itself has turned from misinformation into disinformation. Most notably led to the well-documented replication crisis in soft sciences such as psychology from John Ioannidis' breakthrough 2005 article, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".
Linda: Why is Batman's cape covering his ass so much? It's a question I ask with a tear in my eye as the real Batperson Gotham, The Republic of the Congo needs, being drawn into the battle of our time yet ready to do the work at the permafrost outskirts (
problematic) of science, requiring research costs
to the point that I have to pass them on to you because I'm the only person willing to speak out, showing you the scale of the problem once more. Ok please support my video series on Kickstarter.
Harry: This provocative query may come off as leading up to a thesis statement in a piece of research content, but instead, according to my research, the conflicting
ideological bias and undue financial request involved render it high-grade mesearch.
Linda: Ah, "doing your own research". Now that I've converted you, please support my video series on Kickstarter.