A lot of Apple's value to the consumer comes from the perception that one is standing out from the crowd as an Apple product user or for conspicuous consumption. That's the main reason that their headphone cords are white instead of black, for example.
While definitely somebody can talk about having the iTV, it's not the same as being able to carry it around.
You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".
In the political sphere, at least, I'd say that does happen. Political compromise gets a lot of scorn poured on it, there are certain political figures/organizations who get venerated and call most of the shots, and while there's very little side-switching in national and state politics, so not quite the equivalence to becoming an ex-member, those who do stray from doctrine get targeted, most definitely.
The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.
In some ways, it's very cult-like in the way that it forms identity. Denialism gives you victim/threatened status (those evildoers are attacking our beliefs, we need to be warriors), enough victories to think of oneself as a winner but maintain the communal aspects of thinking oneself under threat, charismatic leaders, the companionship of shared beliefs, a sense of superiority to those who disbelieve, and, in the most cult-like aspect, the assurance of being above mere facts, of living in a world where your personal beliefs trump mere objective facts.
I mean, "The passive voice was forgotten."
It's quite true that many people on death row are innocent; we've seen enough cases where later DNA evidence exonerated them. In many of these cases, the inmates even pleaded guilty, either because they believed that a guilty plea might help their case, they were coerced, or were mentally incapable of understanding the situation.
However, a polygraph is about as scientifically valid as a palm reading. They measure stress levels, which can be affected by existing mental illness, PTSD, fear, emotional stress, or other factors completely unrelated to guilt or innocence. In addition, it's possible that psychopaths or people who believe the murder to be absolutely justifiable may not feel stress when asked about it.
That's one of the strongest reasons to be against the death penalty; for most cases, we have no absolute way of knowing the truth. Even in a case where the police, prosecution, defense, judge, and jury are all intelligent, conscientious, and well-meaning, there can be errors or new findings can come to light (such as everything that the invention of DNA testing allows). We're learning more and more, for example, about how fallible eyewitness testimony is, but we still often go by the rule, "Seeing is believing." It's possible that as we learn more and more about cognition, we might end up formally instructing juries to minimize rather than maximize the value of eyewitness testimony.
Don't forget that the person who actually did predict that this would happen or even protested at the time is now effectively demoted or had to find another job, for being a "poor communicator" or "not a team player."