How Journalists Covered the Rise of Mussolini and Hitler
Friday, December 16th, 2016How Journalists Covered the Rise of Mussolini and Hitler:
So the Smithsonian posted this an hour ago. Just because.
The Smithsonian is pulling no punches.
Key quote:
many American press outlets judged that he would either be outplayed by more traditional politicians or that he would have to become more moderate. Sure, he had a following, but his followers were “impressionable voters” duped by “radical doctrines and quack remedies,” claimed The Washington Post. Now that Hitler actually had to operate within a government the “sober” politicians would “submerge” this movement, according to The New York Times and Christian Science Monitor. A “keen sense of dramatic instinct” was not enough. When it came to time to govern, his lack of “gravity” and “profundity of thought” would be exposed.
I’m sensing a theme here….
“When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”
How to cover the rise of a political leader who’s left a paper trail of anti-constitutionalism, racism and the encouragement of violence? Does the press take the position that its subject acts outside the norms of society? Or does it take the position that someone who wins a fair election is by definition “normal,” because his leadership reflects the will of the people?
Reposted from http://ift.tt/2hE8LRf.