The "think tanks" that are pre staffed and fully capable of churning out and placing 3x major long form articles per week that are pro or con {Subject X} (and an additional few that fence sit and are "just asking questions") already exist and have been about since at least Nine out of Ten Doctors Recommend Smoking.
You know, 5+ decades ago.
The "elites" that are losing money in {Domain X} simply have to question their circle, get a line on a half decent agency or three and hire them to pitch for the thought changes that will move money back towards {X}.
Can you link some think tank pieces arguing against remote work? I tried looking but couldn't find any. I found a few things but clearly none of these are part of an anti remote work effort:
> Can you link some think tank pieces arguing against remote work?
That's not the argument I made in my comment. I simply noted that if anyone wanted to hire a group to argue for (or against) remote work then such groups already exist and have done for decades.
If there's a coordinated press placing of "back to work" articles then the starting point would be all the articles that make that case (or talk about that subject) and look for authors, their bio's, whether these are staff writer pieces (and if so whether they heavily quote "research shows" vague sources), opinion pieces, etc.
The hardest to spot and most common is staff writers who cover all manner of things (no obvious bias) who are 90% copy pasta'ing unacknowledged "press releases" "media statements" handed to them on a plate by the Institute for Lazy Reporting.
US work from home isn't an area of any interest to me and I have no particular awareness of any of the US writing on the subject.
I'm an Australian that's largely worked remote (but not always from home) since the mid 1980s, largely for transnational resource companies.
Part of my professional career did involve tracing and sourcing released information intended to sway opinion, but that was all related to mineral and energy resources.
You were responding to a comment saying the world is not so coordinated by giving some examples of how coordination might happen. I gave some evidence that coordination of the type you mentioned does not seem to happen, at least for the topic being discussed, suggesting that the world is indeed not so coordinated (at least in this instance).
> I gave some evidence that coordination of the type you mentioned
was not readily apparent to yourself.
> does not seem to happen, at least for the topic being discussed,
to the best of your ability to discern such activity, if it exists.
> suggesting that the world is indeed not so coordinated (at least in this instance).
suggesting that you were unable to find such coordination in this instance; not in any way negating the point that such agencies do exist and do take on contracts to shape a public narrative to the degree possible with the resources given.
I have no knowledge of your skill levels at picking out such media shenanigans, while they absolutely do happen in general I have no basis with which to weight your inability to find any specific evidence in this instance.
More to the dynamic of the exchange, you asked if I had any personal knowledge of US remote articles being dropped in the US public sphere to order and I responded that I have no interest in such articles in the US public sphere and thus have no such knowledge. That ancedatal singular fact has no bearing on whether such a thing is or isn't happening.
I've been a remote worker for many years prior to covid and it's been interesting to watch. There's a constant drip of negative articles about remote work which increases to a flood around headlines like the Amazon one.
"Think Tanks" "agencies" etc place articles in media outlets by a variety of means (if in fact this is what is taking place).
Media outlets in general are starved for income compared to yester years and are increasingly easy to place material with.
The first link is Euro-centric, the second is Forbes with a contributed piece by an outside writer ( Julian Hayes II ) who has written a number of articles across a number of media outlets that are pro return to the office.
Is this a truly independant free opinion he is spruiking?
Is this an opinion he gets addition income from a third party for supporting?
I personally have no idea, but this is a hint of how to backtrace content sourcing.
It's not unlike working back through subsidiary shell corporations, etc.
"Source Attribution" gets a whole subtree in Linebarger's 1954 propanal scheme:
a. Source
(1) True source ("Where does it really come from?")
(a) Release channel ("How did it come out?") if different from true source without concealing true source
(b) Person or institution in whose name material originates
(c) Transmitting channel ("Who got it to us?"), person or institution effecting known transmission—omitting, of course, analyst's own procurement facilities
(2) Ostensible source ("Where does it pretend to come from?")
(a) Release channel ("Who is supposed to be passing it along?")
(3) First-use and second-use source (first use, "Who is said to have used this first?"; second use, "Who pretends to be quoting someone else?")
(a) Connection between second-use source and first-use source, usually in the form of attributed or unacknowledged quotation; more rarely, plagiarism
(b) Modification between use by first-use and second-use sources, when both are known
(i) Deletions
(ii) Changes in text
(iii) Enclosure within editorial matter of transmitter
(iv) Falsification which appears deliberate
(v) Effects of translation from one language to another
(nb a.3.b.iv suggests "fake news" is not a recent phenomenon; indeed, Linebarger's book provides biblical examples)
The "think tanks" that are pre staffed and fully capable of churning out and placing 3x major long form articles per week that are pro or con {Subject X} (and an additional few that fence sit and are "just asking questions") already exist and have been about since at least Nine out of Ten Doctors Recommend Smoking.
You know, 5+ decades ago.
The "elites" that are losing money in {Domain X} simply have to question their circle, get a line on a half decent agency or three and hire them to pitch for the thought changes that will move money back towards {X}.
Job done.