Sublime

New York Times’s reporting on the Holocaust: the newspaper had detailed information about the slaughter, found the sources of the information reliable enough to print, and yet, relegated the story to a two-inch blurb on page five under a tiny headline.

But despite the epic nature of the story and the prominent identity of its author, the New York Times decided to downplay—one more time—the story of the Holocaust and placed the story on page twelve.

this point, it is impossible to say which of the Times’s reports and hopeful predictions about the Nazis was the most disturbing. What can be said is that already by 1935, a clear pattern had emerged in the New York Times’s reporting on Nazi Germany. While reports from the 1920s might have taken a “split-the-difference” approach to Hitler, by the 1

Many papers missed the story, downplayed the story, cheek-turned away from the story. But the Times was different than these many newspapers. First, it was the most prominent of the American newspapers of that time, to the extent that the Associated Press ran a daily news summary of what the Times printed each day, since what the Times considered “

For ten years, the Times’s Berlin bureau under Enderis took the soft tack on the Nazi regime, whitewashing its crimes and downplaying its dangerousness, all the while leading the American public, hungry for information about the new Germany, down a deadly path. That

Back in 1922 and 1924, the Times wrote about Hitler as if it could not decide whether he was good or bad, dangerous or harmless, a “lofty patriot” or an anti-Semitic maniac. At the end of the day, it was the notion that Hitler was a relatively harmless, if vociferously nationalist, leader that prevailed in the Gray Lady’s reporting. The same is lar