Have you seen the first New York Times article about Hitler?
It bears a stunning similarity to the paper's sanewashing coverage of Trump last night.
My jaw dropped when I read the New York Times coverage of the “new popular idol,” Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the paper wrote a feature on Hitler’s growing popularity in Germany that you have to read to believe. The reporter notes Hitler “has the rare oratorical gift, at present unique in Germany, of spellbinding whole audiences regardless of politics or creed.”
The most stunning part of the piece, however, is the claim that Hitler’s anti-semitism was just a ploy to keep the masses engaged and entertained until “the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.” The article dramatically underplays the threat of Hitler’s anti-semitic rhetoric, quoting “reliable sources” that it’s “not so genuine or violent as it sounded.”
In the past three days, Donald Trump has signed a bundle of executive orders targeting non-White immigrants, the demographic he’s made the ultimate scapegoat throughout his political career.
Last night, The New York Times wrote this:
“As Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power. He not only revived some of the same expansive understandings of executive authority that were left unaddressed, but went even further with new claims of sweeping and inherent constitutional clout.”
“Facts matter little to whether or when it is legal for presidents to invoke emergency power, declarations that are governed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976. That law does not tightly define the circumstances under which presidents may determine that an emergency exists, leaving them with essentially unfettered discretion to unlock exigent powers for themselves. But previous presidents adhered to norms of self-restraint.”
“Mr. Trump appeared to put forward novel or expansive interpretations of legal authorities in other ways.”
(On the TikTok law) “Mr. Trump offered no clear explanation for how he has any legitimate power to instead suspend the law, making only a vague gesture toward his “constitutional responsibility” for national security, foreign policy “and other vital executive functions.”
There’s a lot to unpack here. A natural instinct when reading coverage like this is to question indeed if leaders like Hitler and Trump are sane and acceptable political actors. Do they fit the traditional molds of politicians we are accustomed to hearing about? The answer is, of course, no. So why are news outlets still trying to make that work? It’s a great disservice to the extremely timely need for a clear and thoughtful civic discourse. So next time you read mainstream news coverage that wants to blur your sanity, I challenge you and beg you to be critical. There’s no telling both sides of a lie.*
*Credit to these guys for that great line and their work on“Bothsidesism”