MSNBC’s use of Nazi imagery is a dangerous step in political coverage

MSNBC’s decision to invoke Nazi imagery in covering Trump’s recent rally at Madison Square Garden is not only a risky rhetorical move but an irresponsible one. In a time when technology has democratized the dissemination of information, even in the “wild west” that social media is becoming, the trust in legacy media was already at historic lows.

The comparison between Trump’s rally and the 1939 Nazi rally held in the same iconic venue, implies a clear — and highly charged — historical parallel that is dangerous, especially considering security concerns surrounding Trump. While the left may see this as MSNBC’s attempt to sound an alarm, this type of comparison often overshadows legitimate critique and reduces historical tragedy to a convenient political metaphor. It also alienates at least half of the American electorate, who already feel disenfranchised by the ruling political class and the large, mainstream media outlets that back their perspectives.

The Harris campaign is not walking back MSNBC’s rhetoric. Harris running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has defended these comparisons as reflections of Trump’s rhetoric and his supporters. On Wednesday, President Joe Biden called Trump supporters “garbage,” drawing even more heat from Republicans. North Carolina’s airwaves are teaming with ads for Harris and down-ballot Democrats linking Trump to Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson and his alleged comments about being a “black Nazi.”

Their insistence on this message raises questions about whether Democrats have learned the political risks of rhetoric that demonizes or alienates Trump supporters. The backlash to the Nazi comparison — echoing the controversy from 2016 when Hillary Clinton referred to Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” — shows that framing political opponents in harsh or derogatory terms can have serious electoral consequences. In 2016, Clinton’s “deplorables” remark galvanized Trump’s base, who saw the statement as emblematic of elitist disdain for everyday Americans, driving moderate conservatives and undecided voters to rally around him.

Linking contemporary political figures to one of the darkest regimes in history is inflammatory and diminishes the uniqueness of past atrocities. As a tool for political criticism, Nazi comparisons risk becoming a shortcut, bypassing nuanced analysis in favor of shock value. Viewers seeking unbiased news and nuanced insights are left questioning the outlet’s journalistic intentions, or are perhaps clearer on them.

A responsible media outlet’s role should be to inform and foster nuanced public discourse, not to invoke sensational parallels that derail meaningful debate. Instead, MSNBC’s coverage has fueled divisiveness by reinforcing existing ideological divides. Rather than fostering informed policy discussion, they invoke loaded imagery that polarizes audiences, encouraging viewers to retreat further into partisan silos.

Perhaps most alarming, weaponizing Nazi imagery risks desensitizing the public to real extremism. When every controversial political event is linked to such horrors, the gravity of those historical events erodes. History’s darkest chapters should be handled with reverence, not casually wielded in political rhetoric. Understandably, Jerry Wartski, a 94-year-old survivor of Auschwitz, released a video this week demanding an apology from the Harris campaign for their comparisons of Trump to Hitler.

“I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes,” Wartski said.

The strategies used in this presidential race have certainly made history. Beyond that we have two candidates who each have White House experience. We also have one candidate who did not win a party primary, repeatedly calling the other a fascist, with backup from major media outlets. Add to that, 24-hours a day of election messaging from social media content creators and voters, and threats from the Biden administration to prosecute online “misinformation.” The stew creates confusion and frustration among voters who do not see this as a partisan game; they want real policy solutions for their families and businesses.

“Accuse your enemy of what you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.” This quote has been attributed over the years to Karl Marx, but it is also an idea prominent in Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book “Rules for Radicals.” It was also a tactic employed by Joseph Goebbels, chief propagandist for the Nazi party. The strategy has clearly stood the test of time.

In an era where public trust in the media is fragile, major news outlets like MSNBC bear a responsibility to engage in thoughtful, measured reporting, and keeping their personal politics to themselves. We see the conflict over ideology brewing in other newsrooms, like The Washington Post, where this week Post owner Jeff Bezos stepped in to stop the publication’s Editorial Board from endorsing Kamala Harris. Multiple members of the board have resigned in protest, including editor-at-large Robert Kagan, who has often called Trump an autocrat. This year the Post, like the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Minnesota Star Tribune, will not endorse any presidential candidate.

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” said Will Lewis, publisher and CEO of the Washington Post.

Raleigh’s News and Observer, along with the Charlotte Observer, have endorsed Kamala Harris in the presidential race.

Instead of reaching for comparisons that stir the pot, it would serve both MSNBC and its viewers better if they grounded their analysis in facts, allowing audiences to make informed judgments without the shadow of historical manipulation.

Donna serves as Editor-in-Chief for Carolina Journal