Books.org participates in affiliate programs including Bookshop.org and the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. We may earn a commission from qualifying purchases made through links on this page, at no additional cost to you.
Overview
For a decade straddling the turn of the twentieth century, Mark Hanna was of the most famous men in America. Portrayed as the puppet master controlling the weak-willed William McKinley, Hanna was loved by most Republicans and reviled by Democrats, in large part because of the way he was portrayed by the media of the day. Newspapers and other media outlets that supported Mckinley reported positively about Hanna, but those sympathetic to William Jennings Bryan, the Democrats' presidential nominee in 1896 and 1900, attacked Hanna far more aggressively than they attacked McKinley himself. The media portrayal of Hanna was inaccurate, but powerful, and this negative image of him survives to this day.
When Karl Rove emerged as the political adviser to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns, reporters quickly began to compare Rove to Hanna even a century after Hanna's death. The two men played vastly different roles for the presidents they served, but modern reporters consistently described Rove as the second coming of Mark Hanna, another political Svengali. In this study of Mark Hanna's career in presidential politics, William T. Horner demonstrates the flaws inherent in the way the news media cover politics. He deconstructs the myths that surround Hanna and demonstrates the dangerous and long-lasting effect that inaccurate reporting can have on our understanding of politics. Ohio's Kingmaker: Mark Hanna, Man and Myth is the story of a fascinating character in American politics and serves to remind us of the power of misperceptions.
Synopsis
For a decade straddling the turn of the twentieth century, Mark Hanna was one of the most famous men in America. Portrayed as the puppet master controlling the weak-willed William McKinley, Hanna was loved by most Republicans and reviled by Democrats, in large part because of the way he was portrayed by the media of the day. Newspapers and other media outlets that supported McKinley reported positively about Hanna, but those sympathetic to William Jennings Bryan, the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 1896 and 1900, attacked Hanna far more aggressively than they attacked McKinley himself. Their portrayal of Hanna was wrong, but powerful, and this negative image of him survives to this day. In Ohio's Kingmaker William T. Horner demonstrates the flaws inherent in the way the news media cover politics. This is a compelling story about a fascinating character in American politics and serves to remind us of the power of (mis)perceptions.