‘Divisive’: How Corporate Media Dismiss Ideas Unpopular With Elites

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (Twitter12/29/20) described a $2,000 Covid relief check as “divisive,” even though 75% of Americans (and 72% of Republicans) wanted the government to prioritize another universal payment. All too often, words such as “divisive,” “contentious” or “controversial” are used merely as media codewords meaning “ideas unpopular with the ruling elite”—what FAIR calls “not journalistically viable.”

Medicare for All is a prime example of this. At least since the issue began receiving national media attention as a result of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, a majority of Americans have supported some form of national, publicly funded healthcare system. Some polls have found nearly three in four support the idea, including a majority of Republican voters. Yet corporate media continue to disparage universal public health insurance, labeling it “divisive” (Axios2/14/20), “controversial” (Christian Science Monitor6/4/19Time10/24/19New York Times1/1/20) or “politically perilous” (Associated Press3/25/19).

Keep reading