The press would do that.
Think about when the world woke up to the concentration camps. It wasn’t until the war was over.
The press would do that.
Think about when the world woke up to the concentration camps. It wasn’t until the war was over.
You know newspapers, letters, the radio, and movies existed back then, right? The press was around?
Two or three components, the military had press with them.
Also, exploiting war crimes by the enemy for propaganda reasons was very important for morale, so it was a high priority thing to have writers and camera people available to document things.
Regarding distribution, specifically the Germans put the info into weekly cinema productions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Deutsche_Wochenschau But there was also radio and newspapers.
Ultimately it depended on either the military or reporters uncovering it and then reporting it.
Japan did establish Unit 731
Not sure how that was in that case.
edit:
I actually forgot something crucial: There was censorship. The military opened every single letter that came from or was sent to theaters of war. They would let things go through or censor them, depending on whether they deemed something either bad for political or military reasons.
So in many cases there was NO way to get specific news back home.
Will they had cameras and no real way to easily fake the photographs. It also didn't help the Nazis that they took meticulous records of their cruelty, that was probably a bad idea.
Faking photographs had been a thing for nearly 100 years by that point.
Can you provide examples because as far as I'm where photographic proof was pretty much capturing reality that point and no one thought different.
https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/art/collections/objects/18132
This is one of the first examples from 1857.
Here's an article about the progression of it:
https://www.discoveryuk.com/features/fake-views-how-photo-editing-changed-through-the-ages/
There's multiple sources mentioned, but the very brave Witold Pilecki actually infiltrated Auschwitz to get information out to the Polish resistance.
And then then broke out again.
wow. just wow. I mean even though they did not know what was going on there they had to know it was going to be bad. to volunteer for that. and then how it goes on for him after the war. thank you for that read.
… that was only heard from word of mouth or tabloids (newspapers).
I think your question is one of perception.
People trusted “tabloids” (newspapers) back then. They were respected institutions, generally. Public payed attention to investigative journalists, and that’s how stuff got out.
They read news. From newspapers. This was normal.
Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Twitter (X)
…And these kind of took over from sheer engagement, not necessarily reliability.
TBH, if someone on X told me the sky is blue, I’d still be skeptical. Hence I’m the opposite of you, I suppose: I find it wild that these artificial spaces have become the world’s de-facto news feed over professional journalism.
Does any of that make social media any better?
It’s the reason why they would prefer a first hand encounter from someone via social media without the narrative being twisted.
This is the lie social media sells.
Nothing is vetted. There's no standard of information hygiene on social media. Anything posted could be a misunderstanding, or fabricated, or deliberate clickbait propaganda.
In fact, that's exactly what engages the algorithms; its why modern social media is such a cesspool, because clickbait is easier to produce and more engaging than professional journalism, and the algorithm boosts that garbage to everyone.
But I'm not in this thread to argue this thoroughly.
Frankly, if you came to Lemmy with the belief that social media (especially corporate social media) is more reliable than news outlets... I don't know what to tell you.
Social media is full of crap due to
AI generated content and toxicpeople
FTFY
Yes that was a tangent...
My only point is that social media is toxic period and you cannot blame it on just AI or on just certain people. It brings out the worst in people. If I were benevolent dictator I would ban it entirely but I'm not so I'm not advocating for that since I know it's not realistic.
Are you an LLM?
all 39 comments