3 Burst results for "Hitler Mussolini Franco Trotsky"

"hitler mussolini franco trotsky" Discussed on History Unplugged Podcast

History Unplugged Podcast

01:55 min | 6 months ago

"hitler mussolini franco trotsky" Discussed on History Unplugged Podcast

"The journalists in your book are interviewing the most important political figures of their day. Hitler Mussolini Franco Trotsky, Gandhi, Churchill, FDR. Could you describe some of these encounters and also, how important were these interviews? For example, would this be as high profile as if Anderson Cooper, Chris Wallace, were interviewing Vladimir Putin right now in the day of this recording his early April as that Russian Ukrainian war is still going on, or would it be more of a puff piece? Could you talk about these encounters with these world leaders? These are the analogy that you draw as exactly right. These are the big guts of their time. And in part, the reason why these interviews are so significant in this analogy with Putin brings this is that there's a sense that these are the figures who are determining history. So history is being made by them and also through them. So actually getting to sit down with them allows a reporter a kind of privileged access into the psychology and to the intellectual thought process, you know, it's not the same, you know, you could sit down with my career or Ramsay MacDonald or any number of kind of normal political leaders. And you've got, you know, some of their spend, you got maybe a little bit of a glimpse, but fundamentally you didn't think that their personality was making history. On the other hand, once you're dealing with a Trotsky or a Mussolini or a Hitler or Stalin or a Putin, it's certainly the case that they are outsized figures who is Jimmy shin puts in our managing to channel the tide of history, quite literally. So how important these are and what you get from them really does depend upon who you're talking

Author Deborah Cohen Describes the 'Big Get' Interviews of the 1930s

History Unplugged Podcast

01:55 min | 6 months ago

Author Deborah Cohen Describes the 'Big Get' Interviews of the 1930s

"The journalists in your book are interviewing the most important political figures of their day. Hitler Mussolini Franco Trotsky, Gandhi, Churchill, FDR. Could you describe some of these encounters and also, how important were these interviews? For example, would this be as high profile as if Anderson Cooper, Chris Wallace, were interviewing Vladimir Putin right now in the day of this recording his early April as that Russian Ukrainian war is still going on, or would it be more of a puff piece? Could you talk about these encounters with these world leaders? These are the analogy that you draw as exactly right. These are the big guts of their time. And in part, the reason why these interviews are so significant in this analogy with Putin brings this is that there's a sense that these are the figures who are determining history. So history is being made by them and also through them. So actually getting to sit down with them allows a reporter a kind of privileged access into the psychology and to the intellectual thought process, you know, it's not the same, you know, you could sit down with my career or Ramsay MacDonald or any number of kind of normal political leaders. And you've got, you know, some of their spend, you got maybe a little bit of a glimpse, but fundamentally you didn't think that their personality was making history. On the other hand, once you're dealing with a Trotsky or a Mussolini or a Hitler or Stalin or a Putin, it's certainly the case that they are outsized figures who is Jimmy shin puts in our managing to channel the tide of history, quite literally. So how important these are and what you get from them really does depend upon who you're talking

Hitler Mussolini Franco Trotsk Chris Wallace Anderson Cooper Vladimir Putin Gandhi Churchill Putin Ramsay Macdonald Jimmy Shin Stalin
"hitler mussolini franco trotsky" Discussed on History Unplugged Podcast

History Unplugged Podcast

08:32 min | 6 months ago

"hitler mussolini franco trotsky" Discussed on History Unplugged Podcast

"It takes a lot of what is the gossip of the reporter's bars and then puts it into print. So the rumors about auditors gonorrhea as well. He doesn't actually say that per se. That's a step too far to talk about the venereal disease or the rumors of the venereal disease, but he makes an oblique reference to it to talk about his kidney, sufferings, his kidney pains, and that being the origins of the reasons why he wants to sort of purge religiosity from public life. Well, that's an interesting point because what he's doing is talking about the inner character psychoanalyzing them. And I think this is an evolution of media that is more long-term than people think. What's imagined is that all reporters had horned broom glasses up into the 50s and 60s and were straight truth tellers, but then Hunter S. Thompson comes along takes a bunch of acid and introduces gonzo journalism to the world and everything changes in one fell swoop, but it's a much more gradual process. So this different type of reporting that these journalists are doing is it in response to the times or are they being I suppose intelligent designers and introducing changes into the medium? What do you make of that? This is such a crucial question. So the objectivity question. So what's your offering is the idea that we've fallen from a great height of objectivity that we once had and reporting and trusted media to widespread distrust of media, which I agree. I think that that is at a high point at the moment. But what a marking in my book is that these reporters of the 20s and 30s are very much the predecessors to what we think about as the new journalism of the 1960s, Thompson did. And so forth, in that subjectivity, inner life and intimate details are absolutely at the center of their reporting. And so when we think about this sort of buttoned up 1950s restoration of objectivity, it's just that as a restoration, it's something that is resurrected after the Second World War. And really isn't characteristic of the reporting of the 20s and 30s. The 30s especially are in extraordinarily emotional time. If you think about the high emotion of the Hitler stadium address, the reporters in some senses are also trying to counteract that with their own fervent embrace of democracy. So someone liked Dorothy Thompson, she's a really good example of this. She feels like what is needed is an equally heartfelt public, emotional argument for the importance of democracy and the liberty of the individual. And that's really what they're producing. One other bit of table setting too, how did these journalists gather news and write their stories? I worked a few years as a journalist before gaining the history route. And there's some stories like, let's say a Watergate, for example, require extensive reporting, months, if not over a year, talking with different sources, gathering evidence, records, other times media events can be almost completely orchestrated if you're going to have, let's say, a diplomatic summit, then a press secretary or a public relations team will come out, give press releases. Journalists can essentially write the story before it happens because everything is prepared and scripted. It's handed to you on a silver platter. Now, of course, getting behind the scenes, you wouldn't just simply follow the lead of a press office, but what did it look like for these journalists to gather news? And then they run off to the telegraph office and send it back home over the wire and then it appears in the press the next day. But what did that gathering process look like? Yeah, the gathering process, it's a really fascinating to try to go behind the scenes and figure out where they're getting their stories. So they're very contemptuous of handouts as they're known. And partly it's because, you know, who would want to take groups as handout for the handout from count tiano, Mussolini's one time press secretary later his foreign secretary and his son in law or for that matter even from the British foreign office or the British India office on what is happening in India. So their sources tend to be, you know, either the kind of tipsters who show up in the reporter's cafes at the hotel imperial or the cafe Louvre or the in Vienna or the hotel Adlon in Berlin retailing the latest rumors about what's happening in Romania. Or they are from local press that they're drawing upon or they're from stringers that their employing new surfaces, or best of all, they're from being on the spot. And so, for instance, John Gunther in 1934 is on the spot in Vienna for two really important stories. One of them, the Austrian Civil War that breaks out when the dictator of Austria, dolphus tries to essentially eradicate social democracy as a force from his country and specifically from Vienna, and then the thing that he ironically he dolphus makes possible, which is his own assassination. When he's assassinated later on that year in 1934 in gunthers, literally there. I mean, he's driving his car through the streets. He is going to watch the Austrian military fight fire cannons on the socialist housing projects in February of 1934 and then he's there as well around the assassination of dolphus trying to understand in the midst of very chaotic events. What is going on? And your question about how do they actually transmit that news back home? So in the 20s and the early 20s when this group of young Americans go to Europe and Asia, the way to get your stories home or twofold, one of them was to cable at N, but that was really expensive. And you would catch help from your editor. If you send a really expensive cable that wasn't viewed as imperative, necessary. Or the other way was to send a so called mailer, which was a longer story. That you would just mail home, but of course that could take months to actually get there. So what happens by the time that say Gunther's reporting that story and Austria in 1934 is that he is calling it in over the telephone wires. From his telephone at home, he's got a telephone installed in his flat. In Vienna, and he's calling it into the Chicago daily news bureau made in European bureau in Paris. And whereas he's saying his story, he's dictating a story actually into a dictaphone. And the handy thing about that method of transmission is that it evades censorship because by the time that a sensor kind of clicks onto the line and this is true, even in Moscow. They can throw you out as the reporter. But they can't actually stop the story because it's sitting there in a dictaphone in Paris. And so in order to actually keep the news from getting through, you know, you can sense your own country's newspapers. You can keep them from printing the news. But foreign correspondence produces a real problem for leaders. And that's true of dictators, but it's also true of the British Empire. Which is if you're going to keep these people from reporting what you have to do is actually turn off the telephone lines in the entire country. And that does happen actually in Vienna in 1934 at various moments. But obviously, that's a pretty drastic solution. The journalists in your book are interviewing the most important political figures of their day. Hitler Mussolini Franco Trotsky, Gandhi, Churchill, FDR. Could you describe some of these encounters and also, how important were these interviews? For example, would this be as high profile as if Anderson Cooper, Chris Wallace, were interviewing Vladimir Putin right now in the day of this recording his early April as that Russian Ukrainian war is still going on, or would it be more of a puff piece? Could you talk about these encounters with these world leaders? These.

venereal disease Hitler stadium Dorothy Thompson Vienna gonorrhea Hunter S. Thompson tiano British foreign office British India office cafe Louvre hotel Adlon John Gunther dolphus Thompson Mussolini Austria Romania Berlin Chicago daily news India