• Source: NY Times
  • So, A Reporter Dug Up The New York Times' First Article On Hitler

    How Did the Paper of Record Describe the Rising Politician, and Does It Sound at All Familiar? 

    Americans are facing a dangerous fascist today, yet too few are brave enough to call it what it is.

    A few days ago, Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin appeared to call Donald Trump a "fascist" in this response to right wing pundit Hugh Hewitt:

    3.jpg

    Meanwhile, Wall Street Journal reporter Jon Ostrower on Wednesday posted this tweet:

    The New York Times article calls Hitler a "new popular idol," "a reactionary," "credited with extraordinary powers of swaying crowds to his will," and says he "demands strong government for a united Germany."

    It goes on to say, "Hitler's program is of less interest than his person and movement. His program consists chiefly of half a dozen negative ideas clothed in generalities. He is 'against the Jews, Communists, Bolshevism, Marxian socialism, Separatists, the high cost of living, existing conditions, the weak Berlin government and the Versailles Treaty.' Positively he stands only for 'a strong united Germany under a strong government.'"

    The Times piece report Hitler's "simple method is first, propaganda, and second, efficient organization. He personally conducts patriotic revival meetings for this purpose."

    "He has the rare oratorical gift...of spellbinding whole audiences regardless of politics or creed."

    As the Journal's Jon Ostrower tweeted, the last paragraphs are interesting, especially these:

    1.jpg

    2.jpg

    In writing about the article just last year, The New York Times called Hitler a "demagogue with a seemingly mystical sway over crowds."

    On Nov. 21, 1922, The New York Times gave its readers their first glimpse of Hitler, in a profile that got a lot of things right — its description of his ability to work a crowd into a fever pitch, ready then and there to stage a coup, presaged his unsuccessful beer hall putsch less than a year later. But the article also got one crucial point very wrong — despite what “several reliable, well-informed sources” told The Times in the third paragraph from the bottom, his anti-Semitism was every bit as genuine and violent as it sounded.

    Here's what some on Twitter had to say in response to Ostrower's tweet:

      

    If you're a New York Times subscriber, you can read the entire article.

     

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Be the first to comment

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: