Journalism During Weimar Pre-Nazi Years, and Deja Vu

[liberalmike27]

What was undermining the political press in the 1920s was, above all, the rise of the so-called “boulevard papers’, cheap, sensational tabloids that were sold on the streets, particularly in the afternoons and evenings, rather than depending on regular subscribers. Heavily illustrated, with massive coverage of sport, cinema, local news, crime scandal and sensation, these papers placed the emphasis on entertainment rather than information. Yet they, too, could have a political orientation, like Hugenberg’s (sort of a Rupert Murdoch guy in the day in Germany (post note)) Night Edition, whose circulation grew from 38,000 in 1925 to 202,000 in 1930, or Munzenberg’s World in the Evening, which boosted its sales from 12,000 in 1925 to 220,000 in 1930. By and large, the pro-Weimar press found it hard to keep up with such competition, though the liberal oriented Ullstein press empire did produce the successful Tempo (145,000 in 1930) and B Z at Midday. The Social Democrats were unable to compete in this market. It was at this level that the politics of the press had a real impact. Scandal-sheets undermined the Republican with their sensational exposure of real or imagined financial wrongdoings on the part of pro-Republic politicians; illustrations could convey the contrast with Imperial days. The massive publicity the popular press gave to murder trails and police investigations created the impression of a society drowning in a wave of violent crime. Out in the provinces, ostensibly apolitical local papers, often fed by right-wing press agencies, had a similar, if more muted effect. Hugnenberg’s press empire might not have saved the Nationalists from decline; but its constant harping on the iniquities of the Republic was another actor in weakening Weimar’s legitimacy and convincing people that something else was needed in its stead. In the end, therefore the press did have some effect in swaying the minds of voters, above all in influencing them in general way against Weimar democracy.

The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 120-21

To me, it is frightening how exactly these papers’ subject matter follows the current state of television and radio today. We have the huge media magnate Hugenberg, like Rupert Murdoch, whose posing media outlets are shoving right-wing philosophy onto the masses as if it were actual journalism, and with the pretense of fairness.

Clearly we have a sensationalist media that is preoccupied with tabloid journalism, which is being used as 1.) a tool to obfuscate real important issues of the day 2.) a substitute for real in-depth journalism showing both sides of an issue and 3.) a less than subtle influence on the psychology of the masses, or the people in our nation. This leads to an often inaccurate view of the actual state of things. The crime issue is a good example. During the Clinton years the rate of crime steadily dropped. But if you watched the media in general, you might be afraid to leave your house.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Another similarity...

As mentioned in the story, real journalism couldn't compete with the sensationalism. Those of us in the media who try to cover more sober subjects have certainly seen this effect in our modern, American media as well.

This begs the question, though -- what could replace sensationalistic media? Real, sober newscasts don't stand a chance. So what is the answer?

[liberalmike27]

3. Well SR

I kind of think that competition shouldn't be the order of the news. Should it be popular? Perhaps part of the solution is for those who engage in serious journalism to point out the mind-numbing, and other negative effects of the sensationalist and tabloid journalism on individuals and the masses. Nothing like pointing out the damage done to get some people to quit. This doesn't always stop drug users, but it may help, who knows.

I don't think news should be popular, just honest, and accurate. I'd love to see the fairness doctrine return, so we can have a more guaranteed two-sided production. Somehow, whether it has to be subsidized by the government (PBS-like), we need an hour of news each night, and we need real news in depth, without excessive worries about popularity.

But with all of that, I'm not a big believer in the "popularity" thing being the driving force behind the extreme turn to the right in the media in the last few decades. It has been a conscious, and purposeful thing. The single most important case recently was the pulling of the pre-war Donahue show, the most popular show on the network, and the only show that openly questioned the war. Clearly the turn is agenda driven, toward the purpose of corrupting minds, just as Limbaugh set out to do on the radio.

Media concentration is a problem, lots of channels, but all owned by the same few people, or controlled by them anyway. That can't be good. Dire straits said 57 channels and nothin' on, but truth is, it's 57 channels and the same thing's on.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Agree wholeheartedly...

As long as news must rely on ratings, it is doomed. And as long as it is owned by for-profit corporations, it will rely on ratings.

Therefore, as long as media is big business, media is doomed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. kick

for all the people who say "don't worry about Rush - he's just a loudmouth blowhard with no real power or following."

He is our Streicher.

[liberalmike27]

5. Another Use of Real Media

The Real media could expose the lies Limbaugh tells. I've got to say though, it would seem a lot of ditto heads want to hear the lies, and don't mind being lied to constantly, as long as the lies support whatever position they've inured into their brains. I think that would be an immensely popular segment of any legitimate news show, exposing and correcting absolute lies by other media. One would hope, at least some would tune out after a time.