back
2 comments
The abstract is probably enough to save you wasting your time, but here is the punchline:

“These entangled dynamics have also fuelled a favourable political environment for Trump, who has combined a corrupt and conservative agenda with stark claims about media corruption and demagogic incitements to violence.”

This is why people disregard the value of historical study. As though it were important scholarly work, not just an anti-Trump piece disguised as “analysis.”

I agree that the piece may have been better off if it didn't mention Trump. However, so that other readers can be aware of where the dishonest attacks may be coming from here:

The name "Trump" appears four times in over 7000 words. All four mentions appear within 3 paragraphs. The remainder of the piece contains 124 citations of the history (the time period of which can be seen in the title) of both Democrats and Republicans attacking the integrity of the press.

It's better not to mention recent politics in any sort of serious work simply because hyper-partisan, hyper-sensitive readers are ever watchful.