Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(14,375 posts)
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 09:58 AM Nov 2023

Wow, just wow! The Hartmann Report...


'America’s largest newspapers are actively working against our democracy. The Columbia Journalism Review, arguably the premiere watchdog of American news reporting, is out with a scathing indictment of political coverage in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Because these newspapers are so widely read and respected, they tend to set the agenda and tone for most other reporting in the United States, and what the Review found was shocking:

“Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. … By the numbers, of four hundred and eight articles on the front page of the Times during the period we analyzed, about half—two hundred nineteen—were about domestic politics. A generous interpretation found that just ten of those stories explained domestic public policy in any detail; only one front-page article in the lead-up to the midterms really leaned into discussion about a policy matter in Congress: Republican efforts to shrink Social Security. Of three hundred and ninety-three front-page articles in the Post, two hundred fifteen were about domestic politics; our research found only four stories that discussed any form of policy. The Post had no front-page stories in the months ahead of the midterms on policies that candidates aimed to bring to the fore or legislation they intended to pursue. Instead, articles speculated about candidates and discussed where voter bases were leaning.”

This is the exact same type of “reporting” that led up to the 2016 election and brought us Donald Trump as president. It’s almost a cliche these days to complain about the “infotainment” we see in TV and radio “news” reporting that has come about in the wake of Reagan ending enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, but to see this same type of horserace coverage passing as news on the front pages of the nation’s largest newspapers is, frankly, a crime against our democracy. For voters to make intelligent decisions about candidates, they must be well-informed. Sadly, that is very much not what is happening today in America, and it bodes ill for the 2024 elections...'

Me: (bold added)

66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wow, just wow! The Hartmann Report... (Original Post) Joinfortmill Nov 2023 OP
And added to the mix of misinformation bdamomma Nov 2023 #1
The only place a lot of people get their information anymore, Bayard Nov 2023 #44
A lot of Americans already know.............................. Lovie777 Nov 2023 #2
I fear that a lot of Americans do not know that corporate media is a shill for horse-race politics. Lonestarblue Nov 2023 #7
Spot on. Traildogbob Nov 2023 #28
K&R 2naSalit Nov 2023 #3
I will make sure I watch Thom more often, gab13by13 Nov 2023 #4
Sirius XM Progress (ch 127)... rubbersole Nov 2023 #46
K&R redqueen Nov 2023 #5
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted by the 104th Congress in Jan/Feb 1996. jaxexpat Nov 2023 #38
Completely Agree. sop Nov 2023 #40
I don't believe that. Lawmakers are not that naive. redqueen Nov 2023 #41
From the first paragraph of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Conference report: sop Nov 2023 #43
Because they were lying, of course. redqueen Nov 2023 #45
Without A "Horse Race" modrepub Nov 2023 #6
Good Thing Katharine Graham Was In Charge Of The Post During The Reign Of Tricky Dick Jacob2 Nov 2023 #8
He's a National Treasure! Goddessartist Nov 2023 #9
FYI, some DUers will never forgive Thom for being on Russia Today. CrispyQ Nov 2023 #13
Shazaam! Goddessartist Nov 2023 #14
LOL. With your screen name, it was perfect timing. CrispyQ Nov 2023 #19
It's a great number! I also have 666 in my medical card number! Goddessartist Nov 2023 #20
Well, when we're talking about the biases of sources, Russia Today would be pretty hard to ignore muriel_volestrangler Nov 2023 #23
Thank you, but I didn't respond to the OP. -nt CrispyQ Nov 2023 #24
Yes, context is important. TwilightZone Nov 2023 #48
Since when is the average voter informed? Septua Nov 2023 #10
And people say we should give them MONEY? usonian Nov 2023 #11
Where can we read real news? marybourg Nov 2023 #12
I use this site a lot, to look up other sites/sources, although I wonder how they would rate themselves. ??? CrispyQ Nov 2023 #15
Common Dreams is a good site for progressives. japple Nov 2023 #21
That's the question of the DECADE (or more) usonian Nov 2023 #25
These are my exact two news aggregators LearnedHand Nov 2023 #60
Please post more of them here. usonian Nov 2023 #62
I totally added Ansel to my must-have app list LearnedHand Nov 2023 #64
And today: Periodic Table of Tools LearnedHand Nov 2023 #65
That is a delight to any tool lover's heart. usonian Nov 2023 #66
Let them eat clicks ArkansasDemocrat1 Nov 2023 #39
For context, report on a study from 2016... Hermit-The-Prog Nov 2023 #16
Canceled NYTimes this month LittleGirl Nov 2023 #17
i cancelled NYTimes this month also! orleans Nov 2023 #27
1. Newspapers primarily report news; speak easy Nov 2023 #18
Exactly. "Issues" are rarely front page news, that's not really the purpose of the front page. thesquanderer Nov 2023 #35
Very good points! reACTIONary Nov 2023 #50
BARF!! Jean Genie Nov 2023 #22
Fairness Doctrine DC77 Nov 2023 #26
yep. i've heard him talk about the fairness doctrine too; it certainly does not seem like orleans Nov 2023 #29
The Times' first article about Hitler barbaraann Nov 2023 #30
It's an odd time when I feel I get the most accurate take on the news is Late Night talk shows. LakeArenal Nov 2023 #31
I am guilty of that, gab13by13 Nov 2023 #36
Ignore the bookmakers, too. TwilightZone Nov 2023 #49
Remember the Maine!!! LiberalArkie Nov 2023 #32
The billionaire-funded GOP shitrags are not your friends Blue Owl Nov 2023 #33
No one reports the facts and truth better than Thom Hartmann. gab13by13 Nov 2023 #34
There's nothing much we can do about it. Elessar Zappa Nov 2023 #37
Here's the link to the actual report h2ebits Nov 2023 #42
Everyone MUST READ THIS AT LINK ABOVE....AND BELOW: Stuart G Nov 2023 #47
The press serves its masters. Chainfire Nov 2023 #51
From the summary in the Columbia Journal I note... reACTIONary Nov 2023 #52
Well, I guess it's official orangecrush Nov 2023 #53
American Media has always just covered the controversy and not the issues Jacson6 Nov 2023 #54
According to some the thing is invalid and of questionable methodology CousinIT Nov 2023 #55
Corporate McPravda Kid Berwyn Nov 2023 #56
K&R burrowowl Nov 2023 #57
Ugh. Eating our own :( Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2023 #58
Two Wrongs Don't make a Right Roy Rolling Nov 2023 #59
I'm the only person I know, who knows who Hartmann is. MerryBlooms Nov 2023 #61
Kicking. nt Hotler Nov 2023 #63


(63,788 posts)
1. And added to the mix of misinformation
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:04 AM
Nov 2023

and disinformation is social media, it's all about confusing the citizenry about what party most reflects our values and where we want this country to be.



(21,987 posts)
44. The only place a lot of people get their information anymore,
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 02:00 PM
Nov 2023

And don't realize how much of it is bunk.


(12,203 posts)
2. A lot of Americans already know..............................
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:05 AM
Nov 2023

hopefully this article reaches more. It's basically a reality check.

It further confirms that corporate media polls are the shits comprised of endless lies along with attacks on President Biden, VP Harris and the Democratic Party.

Corporate media is there with them, all of which are putting Democracy at risk.


(9,958 posts)
7. I fear that a lot of Americans do not know that corporate media is a shill for horse-race politics.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:44 AM
Nov 2023

And thus ensues the distrust in government and institutions because the media is publishing entertainment instead of following journalism ethics and norms.


(21,222 posts)
4. I will make sure I watch Thom more often,
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:25 AM
Nov 2023

now that Nicolle Wallace is on leave. I'm down to getting my news from Stephanie Miller and Thom.

I may have to watch a little bit of Laurence O'Donnell when he has good guests on.


(6,652 posts)
46. Sirius XM Progress (ch 127)...
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 02:32 PM
Nov 2023

..from 9am-3pm EST. You can stay informed and avoid tons of bullshit. Stephanie will make you laugh and Thom will give you facts and the back story. Saves you a lot of time and unnecessary angst.


(115,096 posts)
5. K&R
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:30 AM
Nov 2023

Corporate influence of reporting in the M$M is not a new thing, hopefully in the coming year, many more USAmericans will learn more about it and start critically reading and watching the news

We need to update the laws. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been a blight on this country's media for too long.


(6,788 posts)
38. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted by the 104th Congress in Jan/Feb 1996.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:53 PM
Nov 2023

Just a few facts about it for your perusal.

Both chambers had Republican majorities for the first time since the 83rd Congress in 1953. Newton Leroy Gingrich served as speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1998.
The bill was a relaxation of cross-ownership rules and a near-total rollback of New Deal market regulation. Looking back five years after the bill was passed, the Consumers Union reported that wire to wire competition, the reason that sold the bill, had not succeeded as legislators had hoped.

Warren J. Sirota, criticized the media's coverage of the bill. He wrote that: "Rightfully, this major change in the nation's regulatory structure is receiving considerable media and press attention. Unfortunately...most of the attention is going to the wrong issue, the Decency Act." The Latin American writer Eduardo Galeano commented..."Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few."

Hey, sex sells, right? Boldened script excerpted from Wikipedia. Thanks, Wickey and say hello to Winnie.


(10,080 posts)
40. Completely Agree.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:57 PM
Nov 2023

The Telecommunications Act of '96 was supposed to increase competition in the media, media consolidation has only increased.


(115,096 posts)
41. I don't believe that. Lawmakers are not that naive.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 01:04 PM
Nov 2023

From the wiki cited above:

In this context, the 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to allow fewer, but larger corporations, to operate more media enterprises within a sector (such as Clear Channel's dominance in radio), and to expand across media sectors (through relaxation of cross-ownership rules), thus enabling massive and historic consolidation of media in the United States. These changes amounted to a near-total rollback of New Deal market regulation.


(10,080 posts)
43. From the first paragraph of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Conference report:
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 01:51 PM
Nov 2023

"...to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition..."

That's what it was supposed to accomplish. However, as with all de-regulatory legislation passed by Congress promising to increase competition and lower consumer costs, it did the opposite.


(115,096 posts)
45. Because they were lying, of course.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 02:28 PM
Nov 2023

"promising to increase competition and lower consumer costs, it did the opposite." By design


(3,488 posts)
6. Without A "Horse Race"
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:32 AM
Nov 2023

The M$M would not be on the receiving end of billions of dollars in political advertising. Election time for the M$M is analogous to the Holiday shopping season for retailers.



(6 posts)
8. Good Thing Katharine Graham Was In Charge Of The Post During The Reign Of Tricky Dick
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 10:58 AM
Nov 2023
A Decade Ago, Jeff Bezos Bought a Newspaper. Now He’s Paying Attention to It Again. - NYT
July 22, 2023

These days, Mr. Bezos knows more about the news business. And in recent months, he has become more involved with The Post’s operations, stepping in as staff morale cratered and the business struggled.

Mr. Bezos has said he wants The Post to be profitable, but it is unlikely to reach that target this year.

The Post is on a pace to lose about $100 million in 2023, according to two people with knowledge of the company’s finances; two other people briefed on the situation said the company was expecting to miss its forecasts for ad revenue this year. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal financial matters. The Post has struggled to increase the number of its paying customers since the 2020 election, when its digital subscriptions peaked at three million. It now has around 2.5 million.

A spokesperson for Mr. Bezos declined to make him available for an interview. Patty Stonesifer, The Post’s interim chief executive, said Mr. Bezos was happy with “every dollar invested” in the company. One person familiar with Mr. Bezos’ plans said The Post had planned for 2023 to be a “year for investment.”

https://archive.ph/iw630 or https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/22/business/media/jeff-bezos-washington-post.html


(1,753 posts)
9. He's a National Treasure!
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:02 AM
Nov 2023

I watch him, Al Jazeera English, BBC, some of MSNBC, Stephanie, and a few others. I read mostly.

It's very true, what he's saying. And pretty blatant.


(36,411 posts)
13. FYI, some DUers will never forgive Thom for being on Russia Today.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:38 AM
Nov 2023

Because, you know, we have so many progressive outlets for our liberal voices.

I've always loved Thom since I read The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. I even plowed through Unequal Protection one summer.

Ha ha. I'm responding to your 666th post.


(1,753 posts)
14. Shazaam!
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:41 AM
Nov 2023

I'll have to pick those up! Though mostly I spend my time on art....about to do that just now!

Thank you for responding to that magickal post!



(36,411 posts)
19. LOL. With your screen name, it was perfect timing.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:52 AM
Nov 2023

I worked as a cashier in college & three times the customers' total came to $6.66 & all three times the customers added something to the order to change the total.

There's an artists group on DU. Some talented people here share their work.


(1,753 posts)
20. It's a great number! I also have 666 in my medical card number!
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:56 AM
Nov 2023

I've shared a little there....soon to share again! And I love looking and commenting on the art! Need to step over there later!

Off to art!


(101,258 posts)
23. Well, when we're talking about the biases of sources, Russia Today would be pretty hard to ignore
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:03 PM
Nov 2023

The OP is, though, really about the Columbia Journalism Review - Hartmann is just giving a one paragraph commentary on it (with a breathless clickbait lede of "actively working against our democracy" - really, they are selling coverage of little or no use, not "actively working against our democracy" ).

Here's the original:

Warped Front Pages

Seven years ago, in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, media analysts rushed to explain Donald Trump’s victory. Misinformation was to blame, the theory went, fueled by Russian agents and carried on social networks. But as researchers, we wondered if fascination and fear over “fake news” had led people to underestimate the influence of traditional journalism outlets. After all, mainstream news organizations remain an important part of the media ecosystem—they’re widely read and watched; they help set the agenda, including on social networks. We decided to look at what had been featured on the printed front page of the New York Times in the three months leading up to Election Day. Of a hundred and fifty articles that discussed the campaign, only a handful mentioned policy; the vast majority covered horse race politics or personal scandals. Most strikingly, the Times ran ten front-page stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server. “If voters had wanted to educate themselves on issues,” we concluded, “they would not have learned much from reading the Times.”

We didn’t suggest that the election coverage in the Times was any worse than what appeared in other major outlets, “so much as it was typical of a broader failure of mainstream journalism.” But we did expect, or at least hope, that in the years that followed, the Times would conduct a critical review of its editorial policies. Was an overwhelming focus on the election as a sporting contest the best way to serve readers? Was obsessive attention to Clinton’s email server really justified in light of the innumerable personal, ethical, and ultimately criminal failings of Trump? It seemed that editors had a responsibility to rethink both the volume of attention paid to certain subjects as well as their framing.
Exit polls indicated that Democrats cared most about abortion and gun policy; crime, inflation, and immigration were top of mind for Republicans. In the Times, Republican-favored topics accounted for thirty-seven articles, while Democratic topics accounted for just seven. In the Post, Republican topics were the focus of twenty articles and Democratic topics accounted for fifteen—a much more balanced showing. In the final days before the election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).
What appears in a newspaper is less a reflection of what is happening in the world than what a news organization chooses to tell about what is happening—an indicator of values. Last year, for instance, the Times decided to heavily cover the Russian invasion of Ukraine—understandable, to be sure—but also largely ignored policy implications of the midterm election on the war, as Republicans were threatening to block military aid. Abortion rights were clearly critical to the midterms (with potential impact on laws and judges), whereas crime rates were essentially irrelevant (with no discernible policy hanging in the balance), yet the Times chose to publish twice as many articles on crime (a topic generally favored by Republicans) as on abortion (a topic key to Democrats). The paper also opted to emphasize inflation, rather than job or wage growth, in economic coverage—another choice that catered to Republicans. The Times provided admirably extensive coverage of potential threats to democracy, but in general, midterms coverage didn’t engage much with the dangers posed to the integrity of the election.



(25,420 posts)
48. Yes, context is important.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 03:53 PM
Nov 2023

One that is much too often ignored here, in favor of clickbait and hyperbole.

As for RT, the excuse that other outlets aren't available is nonsense. Providing legitimacy to state-owned propaganda is never OK, and no one on the left should be using it as a platform. People are willing to forgive pretty much anything as long as it fits an agenda.


(2,251 posts)
10. Since when is the average voter informed?
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:21 AM
Nov 2023

And what percentage of the near half of voters wanting Trump back in office, read the Times or the Post or even care about specific policy positions?

The "palace intrigue" is the story...the 2018, 2020, 2022 elections were choices between democracy and autocracy, as will be the 2024 election. I think the Times and Post are trying to accent that "policy" and hope they continue to do so.


(9,667 posts)
11. And people say we should give them MONEY?
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:23 AM
Nov 2023

Pay No Way
For distortions and manufactured news.


(9,667 posts)
25. That's the question of the DECADE (or more)
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:14 PM
Nov 2023

I use two link aggregators: DU and Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com/newest)

I heavily filter DU because so much of it is flame wars lately. So be it.

Hacker News is heavily tech and science, but since it is “owned” by a VC, and appeals to startup people and devs of every sort, it has a wide variety of programming, science, tech in the news (AI, SBF) and so on, plus a few “lounge” kinds of articles, daily.

Not for the tech faint of heart. It was my living, and I actuallty read about 20 articles a day out of some 200 or so posted.

Both DU and Hacker News are moderated to keep the self-promotion and flame wars down. DU, a little less so these days.


These link aggregators offer a wide variety of information, in text form, so it’s low emotional response (compared to TV and video …. I am going to find browser extensions that not only stop autoplay but kills the videos altogether)

I don’t see any one site providing “windows” to such a wide variety ot information, pick and choose outside of aggregators.

As for modding, I have no block rules on Hacker News, though some RW links show up. I just ignore them, as the format only allows one line descriptions and the mods ask people to provide useful info on that line, not just “MUST SEE” or “WOW” as some people do here.

I was thinking of collecting those 20 or so links that intrigue me, and sharing them, but collecting links is tedious, and I should write some script to automate the process after dragging URLS to a folder.

Being able to do some quick programming (i.e. in bash, perl, etc) is pretty empowering. For example, I can convert an entire folder of webp files to jpeg or png with one command.


(3,386 posts)
60. These are my exact two news aggregators
Sun Nov 26, 2023, 12:08 AM
Nov 2023

Love DU of course; really love Hacker News! Sometimes I just screenshot the article titles because they are so perfect. And hilarious.


(9,667 posts)
62. Please post more of them here.
Sun Nov 26, 2023, 12:38 AM
Nov 2023

I found a trove of interesting stuff on HN this morning, but I decided to hit the great outdoors and clear more brush that was obscuring manzanita trees (which are gorgeous) and that took most of the day.

I’ll try to post some tomorrow, maybe in the afternoon.

Try the “best” link.
It shows the top rated recent posts. I sometimes miss a real good one in all the noise (heck, there are over 200 posts a day). So right now, I found a raw photo editing package, Ansel. Top of the list.

I’ll have to boot up linux to run it right now. No problemo. I have an older mac mini that should do fine.
I get such great results with the mac Preview app (and now and then GIMP for advanced editing) that I haven’t used DarkTable or RawTherapee yet. Those might be more than I need, so I’ll check out Ansel a bit later on.

“Photographer with a chain saw”. I edit scenes with chainsaws. Good for annoying foreground removal.


(33,232 posts)
16. For context, report on a study from 2016...
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:49 AM
Nov 2023

[ ... ]
These numbers are staggering in terms of the complete retreat they represent from issues-orientated campaign coverage. Just eight years ago, the last time both parties nominated new candidates for the White House, the network newscasts devoted 220 minutes to issues coverage, compared to only 32 minutes so far this year. (CBS Evening News went from 119 minutes of issues coverage in 2008 to 16 this year.)

Note that during the Republican primary season alone, the networks spent 333 minutes focusing on Donald Trump. Yet for all of 2016, they have set aside just one-tenth of that for issue reporting.

And look at this: Combined, the three network newscasts have slotted 100 minutes so far this year for reporting on Hillary Clinton’s emails while she served as secretary of state, but just 32 minutes for all issues coverage. (NBC’s Nightly News has spent 31 minutes on the emails this year; just eight minutes on issues.)

[ ... ]


(34,039 posts)
27. i cancelled NYTimes this month also!
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:29 PM
Nov 2023

something they printed was so trump one sided and it pissed me off so much that i was done paying for their bullshit.

speak easy

(9,167 posts)
18. 1. Newspapers primarily report news;
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:50 AM
Nov 2023

Policy does not change very often - there is little news.
2. In the case of Trump there is no policy. It is all intrigue.
3. Speculation - what a second Trump Presidency would mean for America, belongs in the Opinion column. There is no way to 'inform' the public - Only to present speculative analysis.


(11,968 posts)
35. Exactly. "Issues" are rarely front page news, that's not really the purpose of the front page.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:45 PM
Nov 2023

Though whether a lot of these horse-race polls are really "news" is questionable as well... but that's a different argument.

These papers do occasionally run features that go into policy with some depth. But as you say, policy doesn't change much day-to-day. If they run a feature on health care policy one day, they're obviously not going to run it again the next day. They probably won't run another until there's some new major public policy debate about it. What do people expect of a daily newspaper? Mainly they are the proverbial first draft of history. You can't blame them for not being great at something they weren't designed to be in the first place. There's a reason there's the saying that nothing is as useless as yesterday's newspaper.

Luckily we have the internet, where you can find all the policy detail you want... including archives of the policy pieces these papers do occasionally do. It may not be perfect either, but that's not the fault of the Times or the Post. This is blaming them for a not solving a problem they weren't designed to solve.


(106 posts)
26. Fairness Doctrine
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:28 PM
Nov 2023

The Fairness Doctrine is not what most people say it is. Broadcaster Thom Hartmann regularly emphasizes this point and explains what it actually is when callers call in with comments over it like it would solve everything. It has, however, led to this corporate infotainment environment by removing the requirement of offering contrasting views on matters of public importance.

Quoting Thom Hartmann “because the main way that stations ‘programmed in the public interest’ was by producing news, real, actual, non-infotainment news, once Reagan lifted that requirement, the news divisions of the various networks came under the sway of ratings and profits.”


(34,039 posts)
29. yep. i've heard him talk about the fairness doctrine too; it certainly does not seem like
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:33 PM
Nov 2023

reinstating it would essentially solve this corporate media problem/bias.


(9,143 posts)
30. The Times' first article about Hitler
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:38 PM
Nov 2023

The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchampzack@vox.com Updated Mar 3, 2016, 10:44am EST

On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.

Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills. For example: "He exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."

But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):

He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.


(28,787 posts)
31. It's an odd time when I feel I get the most accurate take on the news is Late Night talk shows.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:38 PM
Nov 2023

I also saw (on DU I think) that suggested not following polls and pundits: and, instead, watch the book makers in Vegas.

It was very interesting take where Biden’s odds are better than dump’s.

I think something like 8 points better for Joe.


(21,222 posts)
36. I am guilty of that,
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:46 PM
Nov 2023

I am a dog on a bone, bashing polls. Polls are used for propaganda. I do believe in exit polling and when exit polling doesn't jive with actual results then I start asking, was voting done on ES&S machines? There were anomalies in 3 states the last election.


(25,420 posts)
49. Ignore the bookmakers, too.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 04:28 PM
Nov 2023

The oddsmakers had Trump as an overwhelming favorite from election 2016 until mid-2019.

They weren't any more accurate early in the cycle than the polls were. There's no reason to believe they're any more accurate at this point in this cycle, either.


(21,222 posts)
34. No one reports the facts and truth better than Thom Hartmann.
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 12:43 PM
Nov 2023

If you want to be informed he is a must. If you just want to follow the right wing narrative and comment negatively on it then by all means do cable news.


(5,764 posts)
52. From the summary in the Columbia Journal I note...
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 05:38 PM
Nov 2023

... that this study was conducted on reporting just before the election and only covered the front page. Of course these stories are going to be focused on the horse race - this is the final lap, the last inning, the end round. It's the horse race, the pitch and swing, and the blow by blow that everyone wants to read about. And its the FRONT PAGE - you don't put detailed policy analysis and opinion pieces on the front page. You put the latest, most recent, twists, turns, maneuvers and stumbles on the front page. All those policy and opinion pieces go in the back - which is where they belong.

So, we lost an election, and it was a real loss, with bad consequences. So we need to find someone or something - most assuredly someone other than ourselves - to blame. It MUST be the newspapers! Or maybe Facebook. Yep, that's the ticket!


(346 posts)
54. American Media has always just covered the controversy and not the issues
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 07:03 PM
Nov 2023

It does this in almost all political issues. They don't write or talk about the substance of the issue, just that politician X said this and Politician Y said that. Rarely will they explain the contents of a Presidential order or congressional bill or the consequences of them.

Kid Berwyn

(14,778 posts)
56. Corporate McPravda
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 07:24 PM
Nov 2023

A tradition of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted in order to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.


Roy Rolling

(6,905 posts)
59. Two Wrongs Don't make a Right
Sat Nov 25, 2023, 11:50 PM
Nov 2023

Commercial newspapers in a competitive capitalist economy exist to turn a profit first, inform readers of what’s important second. They are not “actively” trying to destroy democracy, it is a byproduct of selling shit stories of commercial interest to “their” readers.

It isn’t the newspapers, it’s the unfair arena of competition. More money buys better media, so the most money wins the media battle in most cases.

That wasn’t the case before Ronald Reagan and the Republicans ditched the Fairness Doctrine, which put the interests of the public over the interests of greedy capitalists. Now, any moron with $44 billion, for example, can simply buy an ideological competitor and run it into the ground. There is no need of fairness when fairness is measured in $$$.

Trashing the Post and Times is won’t make the rules of capitalism different, and ignores whatever benefit many readers get from them.


(11,754 posts)
61. I'm the only person I know, who knows who Hartmann is.
Sun Nov 26, 2023, 12:11 AM
Nov 2023

I'm the only one that knows who Jordan, Boebert, etc, is... Gaetz, 3 toes, etc, not a single name is recognized. We care here on DU and get all worked up, but average folks in southern Oregon, eastern Oregon, no idea who you're talking about. My guess is every other blue stae rural area is the very same. These voters don't care about this stuff. We need a Dem ground assault and we need it Big time!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wow, just wow! The Hartma...