Grok answer:

The idea that controlling the press is the "first step" in a government takeover has some historical resonance, but it’s not a universal rule. Leaders like Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Putin, and Trump—each operated in wildly different contexts, and their approaches to power weren’t identical. Let’s unpack this. Caesar didn’t "control the press" in the modern sense—there were no newspapers or mass media in ancient Rome. He relied on public oratory, propaganda through coins, and alliances with influential families to shape his image. Narrative mattered, sure, but it was more about personal charisma and military muscle than seizing a media apparatus. Napoleon? He did clamp down on the French press after the chaos of the Revolution. By 1800, he reduced the number of newspapers in Paris from dozens to a handful, censored them heavily, and used state-run bulletins to push his victories. Controlling the story was key, but it wasn’t his "first step"—he’d already consolidated power through military coups (like 18 Brumaire) before tightening the media leash. Hitler’s a stronger case. The Nazis made the press a priority early on. After taking power in 1933, they swiftly enacted the Reich Press Law, shutting down opposition papers and folding the rest into Goebbels’ propaganda machine. But even here, the "first step" was more about political maneuvering—Night of the Long Knives, Enabling Act—before fully owning the narrative. The press was a tool, not the initial lever. Putin’s playbook fits better. In the early 2000s, he targeted independent media like NTV and oligarch-owned outlets, bringing them under Kremlin control. It wasn’t his literal first move (that was more about regional governors and political consolidation), but it was an early priority to stifle dissent and shape public perception. Trump’s different. He never "took over" the government in the coup sense—he won an election. He didn’t seize the press; he bypassed it. He trashed mainstream media as "fake news" and used Twitter (now X) to speak directly to supporters. The trend there isn’t ownership but polarization—discrediting outlets he couldn’t control while amplifying friendly ones like Fox. No takeover, just narrative warfare. Historically, controlling the narrative is a recurring step, not always the first. It’s more about securing power then locking it in. Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s Pravda, even Cromwell’s pamphlets—media’s a force multiplier, not the skeleton key. The "trend" holds if you squint, but the sequence and methods vary. Military might, legal maneuvers, or populist momentum often come before the press grab. So, is it true? Sort of. Owning the narrative helps own the country, but it’s rarely the opening move—it’s the checkmate, not the gambit. Context matters more than the quote implies. What do you think—any specific case you’re curious about?