Dan GillmorNot the Onion:
The NY Times editorial page published a "Really, Trump isn't all that right wing, just relax" op-ed today.
Look, the Times editorial page has every right, and maybe even a duty, to publish differing viewpoints. But it should -- at the very least -- not publish rank, obvious bullshit.
The (several) reasonable points in that op-ed, which gets no link from me, are overwhelmed by the avalanche of tendentious propaganda.
The piece is an embarrassment, not just to its author but more meaningfully to the Times.
The New York Times once published a story about Hitler in which the reporter wrote -- and editors approved -- the following: "But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers..."
That should have left an indelible lesson. It didn't.
The Times repeats its worst failures. It's institutional.
(h/t @dkiesow)
Tobin Baker@dangillmor @dkiesow Eh, this is pure hindsight bias. It was 1922 and Hitler wouldn't be anywhere close to power for another decade. Mein Kampf wouldn't even be published for another 3 years. The Strasserites were still firmly in control of NSDAP and they were more interested in anti-capitalism than anti-Semitism. The hardcore anti-Communist, anti-Semitic shift didn't occur until the 30s.
@tobinbaker The point is that the NY Times got suckered by fascists, something it's done a lot in its history. @dkiesow
@dangillmor @dkiesow if you want to see some real Nazi apologism check this out from Better Homes & Gardens (published the same month as Kristallnacht):
http://new.wymaninstitute.org/2004/01/special-feature-hitler-in-homes-gardens/
