Covering the rise of authoritarianism in the 1930s, and in the present day

For our Spring fundraising campaign this year, the RoundTable is featuring several conversations with experts on one of the topics we’re most passionate about: journalism and democracy.

Deborah Cohen is a professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of Last Call at the Hotel Imperial, which documents the intertwined careers and friendships of four influential correspondents and commentators who covered the rise of authoritarianism and the Nazi movement in the years leading up to World War II. Her book focuses on the pioneering work of John Gunther, H. R. Knickerbocker, James Vincent “Jimmy” Sheean and Dorothy Thompson, who helped American audiences understand the forces leading up to the war.

I asked Professor Cohen to comment on how American journalists are covering the threat of authoritarianism in this country, thinking about the current U.S. landscape in light of her research for her book. Professor Cohen also heads the Northwestern Buffett Institute for Global Affairs.

Q: What grade would you give to the journalism being done in the U.S. now on the rise of authoritarianism, and the MAGA movement, specifically?

A: I wouldn’t assign a grade, because I think the dilemmas for journalists are so extraordinarily difficult. There are two very tough problems. First, how do you report on a political figure like Trump to the extent that he deserves, while at the same time limiting his talent for taking over the news cycle? 

That dilemma became painfully clear in the 1930s. For a reporter like John Gunther, the story was the personality – where did Hitler come from? Why did he become who he is? What made Stalin? This was a question that made a certain kind of sense because as journalists saw sooner than most everyone else, these outsized figures were changing the course of world history. And figuring out what made them tick, especially in light of Freudian ideas, was an almost irresistible assignment.

But here’s the second problem for journalists: if you focus all your attention on the charismatic leaders, how do you get a fix on public attitudes? These days, we make fun of reporters who seem to be filing their stories from diners in the American heartland. But trying to understand just who the constituency is for authoritarian politics is a very important part of the job. These questions are much more central to journalists today than they were in the 1930s. 

Q: Another major difference today is that the media environment is far more fragmented, with so many different channels of information. The impact of the journalists you write about probably was far larger than any individual reporter might have today, correct? 

A: They did have the kind of influence that journalists today can only dream of. Dorothy Thompson had a thrice-weekly syndicated column that was read by eight to 10 million readers. And her opinion on Nazism and on the need for the United States to engage with the world were hugely important. Today the media landscape is more fragmentary and the financial situation is also much more desperate.

Q: Another criticism of political journalism today is whether there’s sufficient focus on the stakes of potential election outcomes. How do you look at that question?

A: During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a three-way contest going on between communism, democracy and fascism. As Dorothy Thompson saw the situation, though, the democracy advocates weren’t doing a very good job of making their case. Today, I wonder if the Biden campaign isn’t focusing too much on the abstraction of “saving democracy.” You might imagine that people who came of age or whose parents fought in the Second World War would be really agitated about democracy. But then you have this eternal mystery: how can people who were children during the Cold War, and had their world views shaped by that, be pro-Putin now? 

Q: Another critique of political journalism in the U.S. now is that it is too focused on the horserace – forecasting and polling, which can really paint a distorted portrait of what’s actually going on. Do you agree?

A: The human desire to know what is going to happen is very strong. In researching my book, I became really interested in the reporter as soothsayer or prognosticator. In the 1930s, as now, people turned to journalists to tell them what’s going to happen, because living amid the exigencies of this world is so unsettling. And so the journalists of the 1930s really did take on that mantle, and predicting the future felt like an inescapable part of the assignment.

Q: Since news is a business, how does that factor into the way media covers the current political landscape? 

A: If you have to sell the airtime and papers and website views, the watchability of these outsized figures such as Trump or Putin or Orban – their magnetic quality – really matters. It plays on something that people understood, fundamentally, in the early 20th century, about the relationship between the press and democracy. You weren’t necessarily going to sell papers by appealing to people’s highest morality or their virtue.

The RoundTable’s conversations with experts on democracy and journalism began last week with Juan Gonzalez, the Evanston-based journalist best known as the long-time co-host of the daily news television program Democracy Now! Later this week, we’ll talk with Michael Podhorzer, former political director of the AFL-CIO, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

As Evanstonians, we are fortunate to have award-winning local news coverage via the nonprofit RoundTable. Our spring donor campaign is a great time to support our work with a contribution. Thank you for your consideration!