[BroJoeK]

"Clever! The New York Times was actually balanced in 1940. This history is fascinating"

Hate to say I'm a little slow, but in all this time I never noticed the major factor of today's political reporting which seems entirely absent in 1940:

Where in 1940 do we see any of what we today call "the politics of personal destruction"? I don't see it, anywhere.

There are no personal stories on President Roosevelt, or anyone else, for that matter, certainly not of the salacious types which dominate today's "news." Any thoughts?

[Homer_J_Simpson]

There are no personal stories on President Roosevelt, or anyone else, for that matter, certainly not of the salacious types which dominate today's "news." Any thoughts?

I think there is a legitimate place for bottom feeding reporters in Washington. I had an Aunt who I am sure voted the straight Democratic ticket from Roosevelt on. That was a solidly conservative branch of the family and I don't think she would have supported some of the people she did if their ghastly behavior hadn't been considered out of bounds as story material by "sophisticated" journalists. There are too many creeps in office who personally deserve to be politically destroyed. Maybe the bounds of decency were more closely observed in 1940. Back before Judeo-Christian morality became totally uncool.

[iowamark]

There certainly was a more discrete and respectful journalistic tone in the mainstream press in those days. Nobody in the press reported on FDR's or Joe Kennedy's marital infidelities, for example. Nobody commented on the fact that FDR could not walk or stand without help. There was no glorification of drug addicted show business types.