By Jonathan Chait, Ed Kilgore, Ezekiel Kweku, Eric Levitz, and Max Read
This weekend, the New York Times published a profile of an American white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer, which was controversial for its tone and approach. It also sparked a discussion about how the media should cover Nazis and the Nazi-adjacent. Five New York writers tried to sort it out.
Ezekiel: Was the Times profile any good?
Ed: Only as a “banality of evil” item; not as a serious look at white-supremacist trends. Garden-variety borderline racists are more relevant. You know: people who are enraged by having to “press 1 for English,” and who think black folks are the ones with privileges. These are not people who typically have issues with Jews or want to bring back Nordic gods.
Jon: I have to give the article the same review Wayne’s World frequently gave movies: “Didn’t see it.” I am bored by all the Nazi coverage and I think there’s too much of it. Therefore I did Nazi the story.
Ed: Also: not enough music.
Eric: If you assume that some Times readers are millennials who are sympathetic to white nationalism — but weren’t sure if there was a place in the movement for people who like Seinfeld and Twin Peaks — then the piece was unacceptably dangerous. It offers little useful information. The Traditional Workers Party is not such a force in American politics that it requires such coverage. So, nothing in there to justify abetting neo-Nazi recruitment.
Jon: The only objectionable part of the story was where the reporter wrote, “Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party!” That crossed a line.
Eric: If you assume that there aren’t any would-be Nazis reading the Times, then I thought the piece was unremarkable but fine.
Ed: Though getting back to Jon’s point, treating latter-day white-supremacist politics as being mostly about Nazis, which the Times has come close to doing over time, is empirically wrong. While the big complaint is that the Times has been “normalizing” Nazis, I think the bigger risk is “normalizing” non-Nazi racists as relatively benign.
Max: I thought it failed even on the “banality of evil” front. There were a bunch of moments in it that made me do a double take — he talks about mixed-race couples at his wedding, for example, and reading that I was immediately much more interested in what would make a mixed-race couple feel comfortable around or interested in going to a neo-Nazi’s wedding.
Eric: It’s interesting to me that a “vaguely leftist” heavy metal drummer turned to white-nationalist politics after the Trayvon Martin shooting; and that he sees a white ethno-state as a libertarian project; and that his wife’s friends are cool with it because they’re not into politics. It’s an interesting enough character study. I agree though — how do you not interview those mixed race couples? Generally speaking, it would have been good to get the voice of someone threatened by this guy’s ideas in there. Soliciting some comment from his nonwhite “friends” seems like a no-brainer.
Jon: Actually, Ed’s Mel Brooks reference (which I was echoing) gets to my serious point, which is, there’s a reason why I’m so flip about this. Mel Brooks had to defend using Nazis as a subject of humor, and he explained that it’s disarming. I agree. These people are pathetic, and I think the common response on the left of elevating them and treating them as a serious threat is a mistake. These clowns haven’t earned the right to make me feel afraid of them.
Ed: People turning to weird politics over time is always interesting, but pretty common. Hell, I remember seeing Ted Nugent perform back when he was a flower-power hippie. And the actual Nazis had a lot of recruits who had been “vaguely leftist” — or not so vaguely communist.
Ezekiel: By the author’s own admission, the profile didn’t answer the questions that it set out to answer in the first place.
I think it’s bad to write an article where you set out to answer the question “how did this guy become a Nazi” and come up with the answer “I don’t know, he’s kind of a normal guy.”
Ezekiel: Maybe we should turn to the broader question of how to cover Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists, etc.
Jon: Much less.
Ed: When it comes to measuring the political influence of people who embrace fringe ideologies, I generally ask: “Could this person be elected dogcatcher?” If not, then I’d be concerned about over-coverage. David Duke got elected to the state legislature, and then ran a highly credible race for governor. You have to cover that. And again: I’m more interested in garden-variety racists attracted to Trump than people with some formal ideology or elaborate racial theories or lightning-bolt armbands.
Ezekiel: I just don’t think there are that many people who are going to openly sign on to the beliefs that make Nazis distinctive. There are a lot more people who are going to sign on to some version of white nationalism when framed in a particular way. The increase in the number of people openly claiming to be Nazis is just a sign of that underlying mass increasing. And that’s what I’m interested in, if we’re going to spend time on this.
Eric: One more point on the piece: I don’t think Nazis are a major threat. But to me, the piece almost works as an (unintentional) satire of the way that racism is normalized in white, American culture. Plenty of people don’t dwell on the racist political beliefs of their friends and family, and write it off as a minor eccentricity. But when those political beliefs go unchallenged, there are real consequences — Trump’s election, for example. Hovater, in his extremity, makes the irresponsibility of this behavior easier to see.
Ed: Getting back to David Duke: What finally killed off his career was a photo of him festooned in swastikas.
Eric: I agree that Nazis get too much attention in media. That said: There is a huge discrepancy right now between the percentage of terrorist attacks white-nationalist(ish) extremists commit in the United States, and how much counterterrorism funding is devoted to combating them. We pay too much attention to Nazis … but, also, to ISIS. Arguably.
Jon: I agree with that.
Max: I think there are a lot of pretty basic editorial guidelines that could help a publication ensure rigorous and sharp coverage of white nationalists — Ed’s dogcatcher rule of thumb is a good one. But I think what tends to get overlooked is the larger dynamic by which white nationalists manage to use the media to increase both their perceived power and their actual power. “Attention” is increasingly connected to a person or group’s ability to influence politics, and for the NYT to cast its attention-directing gaze on a guy who is ultimately a fairly minor figure is a mistake. Not because the article will directly cause people to join this dipshit’s cause but because it gives him an appearance of importance and influence that he (like his other self-created alt-right media-darling peers) can use to direct “the conversation” or “the discourse” or whatever we call it.
Jon: Nazis and terrorists are both using the same technique, which relies heavily, even entirely, on manipulating the media as a device to create irrational fear in their targets and to promote recruitment.
Ed: So to what extent do others think the Nazis (and quasi-Nazis) and the antifa folk are engaged in a self-conscious mutual effort to promote each other?
Jon: I also agree that Nazis and antifa are in a mutually beneficial cycle of threat inflation.
Max: I mean, to Ed’s point, not to flog a dead horse, but candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won, what, a dozen local elections at around the dogcatcher-and-above level back in November? And the DSA boasts, I think, 60 times as many members as the Traditionalist Workers Party (or whatever it’s called)? And I don’t think they’ve gotten any coverage in the Times at all outside the op-ed page…..
info New York