Pioneers in the automotive industry realized they had to transform their worldview, using their influence to acquire media outlets. Their tirades embolden anti-democratic forces globally, tapping into humanity’s darker instincts.

This notion may evoke Elon Musk’s social media platform X in 2025, yet it also harks back to Henry Ford and his publication, the Dearborn Independent, from the 1920s. Ford, who created the Model T, routinely acquired suburban spaces to propagate anti-Semitic narratives. The Dearborn Independent published a notorious series titled “The International Jew,” casting blame on Jewish communities for various societal ailments and disseminating the fabricated “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” The Nazis even awarded Ford a medal for his fervent beliefs.

Ford epitomizes a longstanding trend of influential figures purchasing media platforms to endorse controversial perspectives. These notable individuals have reached vast audiences through the evolving technology of their times, whether through rapid newspaper distribution or Ford’s extensive network of automobile dealers.

If you take a ride in the latest Model T, you’ll encounter the Dearborn Independent. In the seat. During that era, local newspapers were significant entities. The Dearborn Independent emerged as one of the country’s top-circulating newspapers, reaching over 750,000 copies per issue at its zenith.

Unlike Ford, other media moguls like Rupert Murdoch generally employed like-minded editors and anchors to express their views. The Dearborn Independent boldly announced its title as “Ford International Weekly,” even featuring a full-page editorial signed by Ford himself.

Musk’s behavior mirrors Ford’s personal approach. Tesla and SpaceX’s billionaires have eagerly shared, reposted, and endorsed false or sensational claims on X, such as the assertion that Social Security is fraudulent.

Numerous precedents exist for Musk’s actions with X. However, he has escalated the process to an unprecedented level. The platform claims he has 220 million followers, a staggering number to substantiate. Even if only a fraction of that figure is accurate, X is optimized to amplify user posts as widely as possible, ensuring they are seen and discussed.

In 2022, Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion, which seemed absurd to many. Initially dismissed as a billionaire’s toy, it transformed into a tool for political leverage during last year’s elections. Musk formed an alliance with Donald J. Trump, using the platform to shut down adversarial voices within the government.

The repercussions are continuously evolving. For Musk, this maneuver represented a significant triumph. Under the guise of enhancing government efficiency, he dismissed regulators poised to oversee his vast empire. Now, Musk wields far more authority over his vehicle and rocket ventures. (X representatives declined to comment.)

Rick Perlstein, author of a comprehensive history of modern American conservatism, stated, “This is something we’ve never encountered before.” Historians note Musk’s frequent use of memes and visuals, observing that “It reflects the politics of the nervous system rather than higher cognitive functions. There’s no rational discourse; it’s simply fear-based.”

Moguls in both the U.S. and Britain have controlled media to wield influence since modern newspapers emerged in the late 19th century. During World War I, Viscount Northcliffe of England dominated about 40% of morning and 45% of evening newspaper circulations. His publications included the Daily Mail, popular among the working class, and The Times, appealing to the elite.

Viscount Northcliffe, also known as Alfred Harmsworth, played a pivotal role in forcing Prime Minister Herbert Asquith to resign in December 1916. His sway was so significant that, in 1917, German forces attempted to assassinate him, shelling coastal residences.

In the U.S., media ownership often exhibited local nuances. In West Texas during the early 1960s, the ultra-conservative Wittenbergs owned the Amarillo Daily News and controlled dominant NBC TV and radio stations, facing little opposition.

Historian Jeff Roche, author of “Conservative Frontier,” noted, “Providing the populace with a far-right media diet can push them towards extreme right-wing views. Amarillo has consequently become America’s most conservative city.”

Simon Potter, a contemporary history professor at the University of Bristol specializing in mass media, remarked, “From the inception of the newspaper industry, media ownership and political influence have been intertwined. Concerns about this close relationship with politics have persisted over time. Does it truly serve the public interest?”

Central to that inquiry is the question: Do these megaphones genuinely empower them, or are they merely shouting into the void? Musk’s American counterpart, William Randolph Hearst, offers insight. Hearst, owner of the New York Journal, dispatched a correspondent to Cuba in 1897 to cover the conflict with Spain, driven less by humanitarian motives and more by then-popularism.

One interpretation of this narrative positions Hearst as a powerful media magnate.

A reporter affiliated with the journal discovered there was no conflict. “Everything is tranquil,” remarked artist Frederick Remington. “There’s no fighting.” They desired to depart.

Hearst retorted: “Depart. You will provide the images; I will provide the war.” This strategy led to his newspaper becoming a significant force amid tumult sparked by President William McKinley, who rapidly escalated tensions, culminating in the liberation of Cuba and acquisition of a vital segment of the Spanish Empire.

This tale, initially told by Hearst’s colleague James Creelman, later resonated in Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane. Though thoroughly debunked, the anecdote persists, illustrating a powerful figure capable of instigating war from nothing.

However, Hearst’s ambitions faltered when he attempted to leverage his wartime momentum to advance his political career. He secured a House of Representatives seat in 1902 but was subsequently defeated in two mayoral bids in New York. His campaign for Governor of New York in 1906 also ended in failure.

David Nasaw, author of “Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst,” believes Musk employs X to consolidate support.

“I’ve never seen Twitter as a platform for MAGA supporters anywhere,” he stated.

Nasaw further suggests that Hearst reflected readers’ sentiments rather than shaping them. However, he acknowledged the unique developments occurring with Musk. Hearst, Ford, Viscount Northcliffe before World War II, and even the lords of British media all shared a commonality.

“They were positioned outside the rooms, shouting to be heard,” Nasaw remarked. “Musk’s relationship with Twitter was crucial, but it served as a conduit, enabling his entry into political discourse. This dynamic is unprecedented.”

As Tesla’s sales plummet, both Hearst and Ford could serve as cautionary tales for Musk. Seeking controversy through hateful rhetoric can severely damage one’s reputation and typically harms business.

Ford faced legal action for libel stemming from the Dearborn Independent, leading to a boycott against him. He ultimately shuttered the publication in 1927, though he never renounced his ideology. The remnants of that controversy still echo.

In the 1930s, Hearst confronted President Franklin D. Roosevelt, positioning an anti-Roosevelt manifesto on his publication’s front page. As the editorials grew increasingly harsh, readers were compelled to choose: whom to support, the CEO or the publisher?

“They chose Roosevelt,” Nasaw recalled. “This choice led to Hearst’s ultimate self-destruction and the downfall of his newspaper.”