An interesting concept, as you have applied it to ever-increasing levels of detail. I think that goes a long way to explain the right wing's strategy to monopolize information delivery and presentation to the public. Rather than just apply their ideology to interpretation of invents, or criticism of others' interpretations, they have attempted to re-define the legitimacy of methods and sources that don't arrive at the conclusions they prefer.

In other words, they just don't say the "NYT can't be trusted to talk about that ", they say "nothing the NYT says about anything CAN be trusted". The next step follows logically: any ideological counter to the NYT must therefore be correct.

A set of criteria and methods and interpretations are put forth with the aim that de-legitimizes any other form of analysis. So for example, once a policy or personality is labeled "socialist", the debate is reframed from whether that policy or personality is worthwhile or effective to whether or not it is socialist. It creates a false debate to replace the real one, a new debate where all the answers are pre-defined (and thoroughly rehearsed) by one side. And they get to define what socialist is.

It's a strategy you see a lot of here on this board; when a debate arises on how much government regulation is necessary to monitor or control an economic or political process, the question is reframed so that there are only two alternatives, total government tyranny and control, or total freedom. And of course, we all understand "freedom" is better than "tyranny". That distinction has already been determined for us, linguistically, not politically or philosophically. A question of fine judgment worthy of careful deliberation is magically transformed to a binary decision with only one morally acceptable answer.

We've got our hands full.