While the actions of Barack Obama in no way correlate to the horrors perpetrated by Hitler, the wanton disregard of the facts by the mainstream media then and now seems somewhat similar!
Concerning Barack Obama and the tingle going up the mainstream medias leg...
- Was the problem simply the initial lack of any vetting by the mainstream media prior to the first presidential election that brought Barack Obama into the White House?
- Was it the conscious decision to ignore the facts that helped shield Obama's past and true ideology from the American sheeple voters? Voters who are preoccupied with the Kardashian's and who were, and still are (see Hillary Clinton), more than willing to be spoon fed the facts (as the MSM sees them) by others?
- Or is it the fact that throughout these seven years we have had to deal with what will likely go down in history as the worst administration in the history of our country (you're welcome Jimmy Carter), the mainstream media has neglected to do its job that is to report the news and has instead decided to editorialize the news?
Concerning the 3rd bullet point, the mainstream media could not do what it does without the help of 50% or so of the American people who only get their news at 6:00PM or 11:00PM on one of the networks.
It's these citizens who are willing and happy to take the news shoveled at them by ideologues masquerading as news professionals at face value (see Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria redline, Iran nuclear deal, Syrian refugees, state of the economy, national security, terrorism, etc.)!
Unfortunately the other 50% of us who actually look under the surface of the news are left holding the bag right along with them!
So to be clear I do not present the following article to compare Obama to Hitler, but rather to show how the mainstream media seemed to be as unwilling to do its job of reporting the actual news in the 1930's and '40's as it still is now.
From The Daily Beast...
'The American Papers that Praised Hitler'
'They fell hard for the job-creating Führer with eyes that were like ‘blue larkspur.’ Why did so many journalists spend years dismissing the evidence of his atrocities?
“The train arrived punctually,” a Christian Science Monitor report from Germany informed its readers, not long after Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. “Traffic was well regulated” in the new Germany, and policemen in “smart blue uniforms” kept order, the correspondent noted. “I have so far found quietness, order, and civility”; there was “not the slightest sign of anything unusual afoot.”
As for all those “harrowing stories” of Jews being mistreated—they seemed to apply “only to a small proportion”; most were “not in any way molested.” Overall, the Monitor’s dispatch declared, the Hitler regime was providing “a dark land a clear light of hope.”
Why did many mainstream American newspapers portray the Hitler regime positively, especially in its early months? How could they publish warm human-interest stories about a brutal dictator? Why did they excuse or rationalize Nazi anti-Semitism? These are questions that should haunt the conscience of U.S. journalism to this day...' Read the rest of the article at The Daily Beast here.