What are you asking me exactly?

First, I accept the notion that people are influenced by the media to which they are exposed. If you don't believe this, then all the world's ad agencies would like a word with you. A preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that media exposure sways beliefs, whether it be the brand of tomato sauce they buy or whether African Americans commit crime at a higher rate or are more prone to violence.

Secondly, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the idea that the ownership of the media, especially the right wing media, would be would be predominately oligarchs who would welcome right wing violence against their political opponents, but would not wish to be connected to the actors who commit such acts.

Thirdly, it is similarly no stretch of the imagination to believe that the people who have committed such violence in the past have been avid consumers of far right media, the primary source of such false news stories as the "stolen election."

Finally, given the first fact, and the two entirely reasonable assumptions, it would seem to follow that there is some connection between the well documented increase of right wing violence and the prevalence of far right media sources. The fact that these right wing media sources have not toned down their rhetoric in the face of this increase means one of three things: 1)They don't believe that there is a connection, 2) They believe that there is a connection but the outcome has been undesirable, or 3) They believe that there is a connection and they are pleased with the outcome.

Option 1 and 2are unlikely; the aim of media is to influence. If they thought they were not influential they would do something different, and if they thought they were influential in a way that was dangerous, they would change as well. That leaves option 3. So, given the first fact, and the reasonable assumptions that followed, it appears that the oligarchs and I would be in agreement on the effectiveness of stochastic terrorism.

Unfortunately, the coincidence of the rise in right wing media outlets and the rise in right wing violence may be only coincidental. We can document correlation but not causality, so therefore, my belief is still just a belief, and a very provisional belief at that.

So we're back to where I started, I have a belief but with insufficient evidence to take it as fact. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, "belief" is a broad term. My belief in the universality of gravity is much stronger than my belief in next week's weather forecast. Both are subject to change, given compelling evidence. Though one will require more evidence than the other. The more strongly held my belief, the more I am likely to treat them as fact.