72 Comments
User's avatar
Barbara Bales's avatar

Why won't they call nazis by the proper name? or propaganda, propaganda?! This is why I stick to independent media exclusively these days. I get so tired of screaming at my computer.

Jan6: the commentator on PBS continued to call the people "protesters" as they tore the Capitol apart and people began to die. I was beside myself.

Expand full comment
Susanna J. Sturgis's avatar

Which makes it all the easier for Republicans in Congress and elsewhere to call it a "peaceful tourist visit." Words keep failing . . .

I do wonder about this, though. It took me a while to start using the F-word to describe the MAGAs and Trumpublicans more generally, but I did get there several years ago. My hesitation had a lot to do with how my left-leaning cohorts back in the day applied the word sloppily to most conservatives (and not a few liberals). I've never forgotten how a great history prof of mine, ca 1973, opened his first lecture on Fascism and Nazism with "What is a Fascist -- other than someone you don't like?" We laughed, but it was a rather nervous laughter.

Expand full comment
Richard Donnelly's avatar

When journalists report the news, they use facts. When they analyze the news, they use opinion. Don't confuse the two.

Expand full comment
Mark Jacob's avatar

Is the Trump White House fascist and authoritarian, according to your grasp of the facts?

Expand full comment
Michael Roseman's avatar

Trump is a fascist, Musk is a nazi, everyone working for them are fellow travelers, except the rapidly diminishing federal career employees. The GOP Congress members are appeasers, supplicants, collaborators and happily antidemocratic.

Expand full comment
Chris Montana's avatar

An interesting and thoughtful position. I must ask then, at what point during the Hitler years in the 30's and 40's would have it been "factual" to refer to Hitler as fascist? Who would decide that point? (Same question for Mussolini.)

Expand full comment
Richard Donnelly's avatar

Thanks Mark. Maybe. But I don't want front page news reporting my "grasp of the facts", which is just another word for my opinion.

Expand full comment
Chris Montana's avatar

An interesting and thoughtful position. I must ask though, at what point in the 30's (or 40's) would you think it would have been factual to refer to Hitler and company to be "fadcist"? (Same question for Mussolini I Italy.)

Expand full comment
Richard Donnelly's avatar

Mussolini made it easy. He called himself a fascist. If someone says that's what they are, that's what you report. As for Hitler, I don't know how he identified. Regardless, everyone everywhere agreed he was a fascist. Agreement is the key. That's what facts are.

Expand full comment
Laurie versace's avatar

FACTS. The definition of fascism carries the truth.

Expand full comment
Lyndy Dower's avatar

I have not used the word fascist lightly in the past. And now there’s no other word to describe trump’s regime.

Expand full comment
Jan C's avatar

I’ve never used it except in a historical or philosophical context before.

And in my worst nightmares I NEVER thought it would apply to a regime in the United States of America.

Expand full comment
Richard Van Atta's avatar

I’d call the Trumphuk/ Muskalini regime proto-fascist. If fascism is defined

“Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition…” (Note: This definition is missing one key element: demonizing of other races, religions with underlying concept of ethnic superiority.

The current T/M regime is a couple steps behind true, full up fascism but the underlying philosophy is pointed in that direction.

Expand full comment
Jan C's avatar

Imo, Richard, “proto-fascist” is enough to start with. Hitler expanded his definition of “undesirables” too, even if Jews stayed in the front.

Expand full comment
Laurie versace's avatar

Right- we are in the beginning stages with movement towards full fascism every single day. A baby is still a human even though he/she is not fully grown, right? The fascist baby is growing.

Expand full comment
Cynthia A's avatar

It’s not only fascism. The people who need this kind of power and control are sick. They are malignant narcissists with predatory, predictable behaviors. The media completely ignores the fundamental pathologies. People need to understand this begins with a broken BRAIN.

Expand full comment
Susanna J. Sturgis's avatar

In that case, "malignant narcissists" have been running the economic show at least since the Reagan administration, and I'd argue that they've been around a lot longer than that. Consider the "robber barons" of the late 19th century. Or the white male oligarchs of the antebellum South. Treating this as a sickness -- an problem of individuals -- ignores the key question of why our economic system all too often rewards such individuals so handsomely.

Expand full comment
Cynthia A's avatar

The argument is the media is missing the point. There is no doubt they have been around for a long time. History is full of tyrants that have created horror for the people they rule. The media needs to stop normalizing pathologies in the name of politics. We elected a “hitler” as president. They give hurricanes more warnings than they do Trump.

Expand full comment
Laurie versace's avatar

Vicious capitalism.

Expand full comment
Laurie versace's avatar

Yes! Without exception, dictators (just like cult leaders) are psychopaths/sociopaths. How have we not learned from history?

Expand full comment
Lefty Red's avatar

Maybe the NYT will wake up now that media are being banned from WH briefings for refusing to bow to the regime. (Media seem to become the most agitated when they're the ones targeted.) But if losing the work space they had at the Pentagon for decades & being replaced by a right-wing outlet didn't do it, they may be hopeless.

Expand full comment
Jan C's avatar

I thought so too, Lefty, but if it was normalizing Hitler 100 years ago, I’m going with Mark here: It hasn’t learned squat.

Expand full comment
Lefty Red's avatar

I agree with you. The last 4 words reflect how i actually feel

Expand full comment
My Walk's avatar

When people show you who they are believe them

Expand full comment
Judy's avatar

Perhaps the media is not out of touch but rather they too are facist.

Expand full comment
Judy Steiner's avatar

There are extreme right-wing media that are fascists. Mainstream media are in fear. If they mention fascists in their reporting, Trump will destroy them. People are afraid of his wrath. Especially Republicans. They are loyal to Trump. That is a dictatorship.

Expand full comment
Mary Greenwald's avatar

If you are talking about Mainstream Conservative Media, they are not in fear. This is the line they have been preaching forever. When you mention Republicans and those Democrats in the Senate voting for Trump's Agenda, you are explaining the Conservative Agenda. Some may feel loyalty, but many, like McConnell are true believers in Project 2025. That does not make a dictatorship as much as it takes America back to its Founding - For Rich White Slave Owners.

Expand full comment
Jan C's avatar

My Rep lost my vote by voting for Larkin-Riley. He tried to backpedal because he voted No the second time. I said “No do-overs. If you’d voted no the 1st time, there might not have been a 2nd time.”

He’s Jewish too, which really takes the cake.

Expand full comment
Mary Greenwald's avatar

The Media are not clueless. None of them. They are cowards.

Expand full comment
David's avatar

I told my Oklahoma brother in 2015 that Trump was a racist espousing nazi propaganda. My frustration since has focused on those who refuse to “call a spade a spade”. The GOP no longer exists. It is now the Nazi Party of America. Its slogan should read “the cruelty is the point”. I still can’t believe that people refuse to admit the truth. Trump is turning your country into a third world ”shithole” country and y’all apparently are good with that. Keep ‘em poor and ignorant and you can sell them anything! And the mainstream media are pathetic. Journalists used to be professionals, some still are, but they don’t exist in the mainstream anymore.

Support independent journalism and dump your subscriptions to “newspapers” that cause enable democracy to die in broad daylight.

Expand full comment
Becky Daiss's avatar

Maybe because corp media billionaire owners/CEOs are all in for fascism and what's in it for them.

Expand full comment
Jason Egenberg's avatar

They’re coming for Social Security—and they think you won’t notice. Musk is spreading lies, Trump is stacking the deck, and Project 2025 is the blueprint for gutting your retirement. This article exposes the plan unfolding right now—and what must be done to stop it.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the article. Thank you.

https://jasonegenberg.substack.com/p/theyre-about-to-kill-social-securityand

Expand full comment
Mark Jacob's avatar

Nicely written.

Expand full comment
Jason Egenberg's avatar

Thank you very much.

Expand full comment
Jim Tragos's avatar

I first tweeted this in October 2020, to a mainstream journalist (and I have tweeted it many times since, in various ways):

"The GOP is a fascist movement. Fascism is the ideology of power. It's not concerned with norms, boundaries, respect for institutions or how those outside its movement view them. Of course your 'profession' requires you to be blind to this. Or pretend to be".

Notice how the characteristics I list are identical to the phrases used in the MSM headlines Mark provides, only I cite them AFTER I have defined the name of the movement to which these characteristics collectively belong.

It is as much of an absurdity to not name the 'ism' to which this group of actions belongs as it would be to not use the term 'racism' to describe the belief that Whites should be preeminent politically and societally because other races are inferior. Come to think of it though, the MSM fails this test as well.

Expand full comment
Jan C's avatar

Jim, in 2020 I noticed on other social media that many immigrants were saying “I know socialism. You don’t want it here.” My reply was “I don’t want fascism either. You may not like socialism but you don’t understand democracy, and the result will be that the fascists slip through.” Sometimes being right sucks.

Expand full comment
Laurie versace's avatar

Part of the issue is that most people don’t understand a political system (communism, for example) vs an economic system (socialism). You can, and we do in the US, have many programs that are socialist in nature. A country using tax dollars for infrastructure, the environment education and equity does not necessarily mean its govt is authoritarian. Western Europe countries which practice socialist democracy has proven this for years.

Expand full comment
Jan C's avatar

Good point, Laurie.

Whenever someone says "We need to cut gov't spending" (talking locally, not nationally), I say "So you're in favor of defunding the police. Good for you."

Expand full comment
Homi Hormasji's avatar

The underlying problem is that our mainstream media are not independent. They are beholden to their owners and advertisers. This system of patronage breeds an insidious form of hypocrisy in which not "rocking the boat" governs the presses' critical function of pursuing the truth. How could it be otherwise unless the system itself changes?

Expand full comment
Richard Donnelly's avatar

There will always be an owner. And the only way to avoid ads is to go nonprofit. But then you're beholden to donors. Finally, there is state-run media. Not so sure that's good. So it's back to the current system, which is probably as good as we can get.

Expand full comment
Homi Hormasji's avatar

Yes, Richard, but that depends on how ownership of a newspaper is defined and maintained. The ownership and management of The Guardian provides the best such case: the paper is owned by the Scott Trust which was created in 1936 for the express purpose of securing "the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference."

This is exactly why The Guardian is, and can afford to be, dedicated to telling the truth.

Expand full comment
Richard Donnelly's avatar

Thanks. But I think there's some danger in judging the mainstream media by ownership. The MSM has rules, history, associations, and polices itself pretty carefully. In the case of ownership, and despite what you might have heard, owners cannot interfere with editorial decisions, including reporting.

That's the MSM. In today's atomized environment, the smaller outlets often present themselves as alternatives, and are less respectful of tradition. This is a whole different world with much to say, and beyond the discussion we're having here.

So returning to the point, not sure where journalism can be improved through an adjustment in ownership. The question itself is inappropriate from the standpoint of longstanding ethics. Ownership must never equal control.

Expand full comment
Mo Deng Baby Hippo's avatar

Because they are owned and content censored by fascist. Hope this helps.

Expand full comment
Ravenna Schall's avatar

Very good question. I assume they’re all cowed in fear

Expand full comment
Jan welsh's avatar

Same reason they tiptoed around ‘alternative facts’ for 4 years last time, I guess. Calling the President of the United States a liar and a fascist is only wrong when it isn’t true. I do believe that we crossed that rubicon awhile ago. Words

Matter

Expand full comment