Advocates of a single-payer health plan in the United States aren't exactly accustomed to seeing their efforts covered in the corporate media--or in the headline of a major newspaper story, no less. The Washington Post reminded us on June 6 what happens when media finally get around to taking a look at the issue.

Under the headline " 'Single-Payer' Supporters Challenge Democrats," reporter Dan Eggen deployed typically dismissive language in describing single-payer activists--writing that they had "struck again," referencing the "increasingly noisy" protesters who are "hounding" lawmakers. All this is part of an "offensive" that will "swamp" some apparently well-intentioned pro-White House house parties.

The real point is laid out pretty clearly:

The movement poses both an opportunity and a challenge for Obama, who is able to position himself as a centrist by opposing a single-payer plan but who risks angering a vocal part of the Democratic base.

In the strange world of corporate journalism, one can prove his/her "centrist" credentials by opposing a policy that has majority support from the public.

Eggen doesn't totally omit any reference to polling on single-payer; in fact, he reported that such polling "varies widely." But instead of giving some examples of this supposed variation, readers were treated to only one actual citation--a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that listed eight different options for expanding healthcare. (Single-payer finished last.) Eggen did explain that the polling on single-payer differs "based largely on how the issue is framed." Why, then, would you choose a rather unrepresentative example of such polling, when straight-forward poll questions are easy to come by? It's hard to say why, but it certainly fits with the media's well-established pattern of trying to hide the public's support of single-payer from the, well,  public.

There's been a corporate media trope lately that the stimulus bill, despite Barack Obama's assurances, contains "pork." It's not always clear what "pork" means, but the Washington Post today (2/13/09) had an example of the genre--headlined "Despite Pledges, Stimulus Has Some Pork"--that opens with a definition of what it means by the term.  Unfortunately, it's a definition that would seem to turn virtually any government spending into an instance of "pork."

Reporters Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima lead off:

The compromise stimulus bill adopted by House and Senate negotiators this week is not free of spending that benefits specific communities, industries or groups, despite vows by President Obama that the legislation would be kept clear of pet projects, according to lawmakers, legislative aides and anti-tax groups.

And here's exhibit A:

The deal provides $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, for example, including money that could benefit a controversial proposal for a magnetic-levitation rail line between Disneyland, in California, and Las Vegas, a project favored by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The 311-mph train could make the trip from Sin City to Tomorrowland in less than two hours, according to backers.

Note the language there: "could benefit."  A few paragraphs down the piece clarifies:

Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in a statement that the transportation secretary "will have complete flexibility as to which program he uses to allocate the funds," but he acknowledged that "the proposed Los Angeles-Las Vegas rail project would be eligible."

So the Las Vegas-to-L.A. rail link (huh, that sounds less silly than "Disneyland," doesn't it?) "would be eligible" for the high-speed rail money--as would proposals to speed travel between L.A. and San Francisco, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the major Ohio cities, etc.  The list of high-speed rail projects on the drawing board would certainly take a lot more than $8 billion to fund.

If being one of several "eligible" projects that could potentially benefit from a program makes you a "specific" beneficiary of that program--and therefore a recipient of "pork"--what government program would not have such beneficiaries?  What kind of stimulus spending would not meet the Washington Post's definition of pork?