The Times Are A'Changing

PJM points out that comedian Larry David's mockery of Trump-as-Adolf doesn't line up beautifully with their actual coverage of Adolf back when he was a going concern. 
Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to become the first reporter from an American news outlet to interview the new chancellor, and she turned out to be an intriguing choice for the Times editors to make to conduct this interview, for she appears to have been something of a Hitler fan. In the presence of this man whose name has become today synonymous with evil, she was decidedly starry-eyed... Oh, the Führer’s eyes! “His eyes,” she told the world, “are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.”

Hitler speaks “slowly and solemnly but when he smiles—and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview—and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it’s easy to see how he sways multitudes.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.” He tells McCormick coyly: “Ah! Women! Why, women have always been among my stanchest [sic] supporters. They feel that my victory is their victory.”

By coincidence, the history I am currently reading contains a similar off-key note from the NYT. When WWI broke out -- I not II -- the NYT loved the new Espionage Act and its crackdown on free speech, especially speech by recent immigrants with radical views. They liked the draft too:

Powerful New Yorkers viewed [Federal law enforcement agencies] as allies in their effort to turn the war into a moment of broader social reckonings. The New York Times welcomed the arrival of the military draft as "a long and sorely needed means of disciplining a certain insolent foreign element in this nation." [Willrich, Anarchy, 190]

On the one hand, I suppose it would be a lot to ask of an institution to remain perfectly consistent over a hundred years of change such as we've experienced. Still, it's interesting to see that they took a very Trumpian position a hundred years ago, or even in Adolf's day. 

On the other hand, they do show perfect consistency in wanting to use Federal agencies to force the rest of the country into line with their views. "Disciplining a certain insolent... element in this nation" is one thing they've been clear supporters of right down the line. 

2 comments:

Dad29 said...

"Disciplining a certain insolent... element in this nation" is one thing they've been clear supporters of right down the line.

Well, except for the insolent hard-Left. The ones with "peaceful" incendiary bombs and "peaceful" riots.

Grim said...

That's another place where their perspective has shifted.

Here's an account of the 4th of July explosion of a bomb that was meant for JD Rockefeller, but killed its makers. The Times definitely did not regret their passage, and used the occasion to mark how it should instruct others not to do such things as make bombs.

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1914/07/06/101920433.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0