Divided: A nation at a crossroads, and the high stakes of our binary politics

Exploring America’s deep polarization is just one way AfroLA doesn’t pull punches covering the election.

It’s no secret that America is deeply polarized, perhaps more so than at any time since the Civil War. It feels like division is so embedded in how we talk these days. At this rate, if we dropped a dollar into the “Division Jar,” it could end up worth more than Elon Musk’s rainy day fund.

Polarization is a long-term issue that’s not going anywhere. The “us versus them” motif has been embedded in storytelling for millennia, tapping into our most primal instincts. But the version we’re getting now is a social construct, crafted by those who benefit from dividing us.

Covering politics is hard, and it’s only gotten harder.

Many dismiss coverage as “partisan” simply because it challenges their views or presents facts they find uncomfortable. This labeling often stems from personal opinion rather than an objective evaluation.

But nonpartisan reporting should be grounded on facts, not on differing interpretations of reality. When journalists prioritize truth over comfort, it should not be dismissed as partisanship; rather, it reflects a commitment to holding power accountable.

Lies know no color, no political affiliation, and no boundaries.

AfroLA centers on deeply reported solutions journalism that goes beyond superficial narratives. Our commitment to context and nuance sets us apart, ensuring that our coverage is grounded in truth rather than ideology. We refuse to sanitize our reporting or pull punches, especially regarding the complex issues of our time.

If we cover a topic, we need to cover it right, with the full nuance it deserves.

This approach allows us to address the intricate connections between polarization, the culture it creates, and the role media plays in enabling these dynamics, providing our audience with the insights they need to engage thoughtfully in the political discourse.

This is why AfroLA chose to co-produce the second season of the divided. podcast. By exploring the intersections of mental health and political polarization, we aim to foster understanding and promote constructive dialogue. In a time when many media outlets have chosen to retreat into partisan echo chambers, we stand firm in our belief that truth should guide our reporting — no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

Lies know no color, no political affiliation, and no boundaries. We live in an era where both sides of the aisle are guilty of manipulation, polarizing us at a critical time when a united front is needed.

There’s a lot that gets lost in the noise when we talk about polarization: layers of information left untouched and questions unasked because we think we already have the answers.

At a fundamental level, that’s why polarization and mental health deserve real, thoughtful analysis — a far cry from what we see in larger media platforms that show the public what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

This hunger to report from a multifaceted perspective is rooted both in my training and powerful personal experiences.

When I first started out in beat reporting, I covered the economics of the Berkeley Marina, more specifically, the boats themselves. Half the struggle was that every story felt like a slight variation on the same theme, circling back to the same point.

I realized that I needed something that could set up a solid footing, the way a contractor starts on a blank lot, laying the foundations so the structure can take shape over time.

With the right support, the house stands strong. That’s how I approach writing about polarization — starting from the ground up, aiming to give others something real to build on. I examine it not from a single angle, but from every possible perspective I can, reaching across disciplines.

divided. is a podcast that explores what separates us — and how we can find common ground. This season examines the root causes of political polarization in the U.S. through an investigative, solutions journalism lens.

Listen to Episode 1, “The Mirror,” on AfroLA, or stream on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

Much of what we hear today around mental health feels evasive. It’s as if the topic is Voldemort — a taboo we dance around with sanitized or saccharine language. That’s why divided. goes all in — examining the blacks, whites, grays, and every nuance that AfroLA stands for. AfroLA is the perfect platform for this piece because it champions journalism that isn’t afraid to dig deep, explore solutions, and provide the necessary context.

Each election is a moment of decision, but its consequences stretch far beyond Election Day, influencing how we interact with one another in our daily lives.

Words and actions matter, especially today, because they don’t just influence us in the voting booth — they shape the long-term culture we live in. In our interconnected world, the decisions made by those we elect ripple out, impacting us long after we pull the lever in the voting booth. We’ve seen this with past Administrations.

Ronald Reagan shaped the economic culture of the 1980s, championing deregulation and wealth generation in a way that still resonates today. George W. Bush’s presidency reframed how America viewed the Middle East, embedding a lasting sense of caution and fear into our national psyche.

Roger Mudd asked Ted Kennedy a single question in 1979: “Why do you want to be President?” In doing so, he prioritized accountability over party loyalty.

Edward R. Murrow famously confronted Joseph McCarthy, risking his reputation to challenge the Red Scare’s paranoia because it was the right thing to do.

Walter Cronkite, with direct access to President Lyndon B. Johnson, didn’t shy away from declaring the Vietnam War unwinnable on air after witnessing its devastation. Johnson himself said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost [the war].”

In stark contrast, we find ourselves in a media landscape where silence speaks volumes and the biases are as obvious as a bad facelift. It’s a cowardly choice that ultimately damages our democracy during a critical moment.

It’s no secret that the Institution is losing as much trust as it is and subscriptions are dropping like a rock. Why? Weaponized polarization is causing the entire industry to take massive hits. We, the journalists, have given the stick for the politicians and public to beat us with simply because we have not done our jobs properly. We have confused informing the public with feeding our own biases and telling our audience exactly what they want to hear instead of challenging them.

We have a responsibility to rise to this moment. It’s not just about reporting the facts; it’s about challenging misinformation and holding those in power accountable. It’s time for us to reclaim journalism as a platform for truth and transparency, to push back against narratives that divide us, and to foster a dialogue that promotes understanding and unity. We must speak out against the cowardice of silence, recognizing that every time we choose to remain quiet in the face of misinformation, we contribute to the erosion of our democracy.

It shouldn’t have to be this hard, and we shouldn’t have to scream this loud for the truth to be heard. Yet here we are, navigating a media landscape that feels more like a reality TV show than a platform for informed discourse. The news has strayed away from covering the hard issues that matter and instead focuses on the sensational — sex, violence, and the weather — while ignoring the deeper stories that shape our society.

In this fog of distraction, the real problems come from within. We’re fogging up the mirror, avoiding the reflection that might force us to confront uncomfortable truths. Sure, it’s the easy way to do our job, but that often comes at the expense of integrity and accountability.

I was taught — and I firmly believe — that in journalism, you can do the job accurately, quickly, and for a profit, but you can’t achieve all three at once. You have to choose two, and that choice must be made now. Are we going to prioritize the financial bottom line at the cost of truth and responsibility? Or will we commit to restoring the trust that has been lost, challenging our audiences to engage with the complexities of the issues that divide us? The time to make that choice is now, and the future of journalism — and our democracy — depends on it.

As we confront this landscape of misinformation and division, we cannot ignore the role of societal PTSD that permeates our rhetoric and language. Politicians perpetuate this cycle, but who exactly has been the middleman in spreading these narratives? It’s a crucial question to explore, and the answers may require deep evaluation and significant changes.

In the upcoming episodes of divided., we’ll delve into these dynamics more thoroughly. We’ll examine how the language we use reinforces the divisions that affect our mental health and societal cohesion. Our aim isn’t just to dissect the issues but to lay the groundwork for understanding how we can foster a more constructive dialogue. So, stay tuned. What’s coming next is designed to not only challenge but also empower us as we navigate this complex terrain together.