The term mainstream has been weaponized as an insult denoting disreputable journalism.

Evidence

For example, Trump adopted a claim from the conspiracist website Infowars (“Scandal: Mass Media Whitewashes Islamic Terror in Berlin”) that the media were deliberately refusing to report terrorist attacks. “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported,” Trump asserted, during (of all things) a talk to military leaders at Central Command. “And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.” “Fake news” as a conspiracist charge has become a part of everyday politics: in the first year of his presidency, Trump tweeted about fake news 180 times. He is not alone in seeing the media itself as a conspiracy. A host of conservative broadcasters demonize the mainstream press, labeling the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and other outlets “drive-bys,” as in drive-by killers. In fact, the very term mainstream has become a term of abuse: it is a red line, demarking a category of journalism that is beyond the pale. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 256

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines how ‘mainstream’ flipped from a neutral descriptor into an epithet marking journalism as beyond the pale.
  • XREF: Echoes Rosenblum’s broader argument about conspiraciam delegitimizing knowledge institutions; connects to similar dynamics in the reader’s prior notes on media and power. — connects to: Public, performative media vilification aims to destroy press legitimacy, unlike private griping. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New
, 260; Carlson inverted genocide terminology to smear mainstream criticism of racism. — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror
, 473

Broader Connections