The New York Times thought Franz Ferdinand's assassination was good for peace

It was 100 years ago today that Archduke Franz Ferdinand — heir to the House of Habsburg and presumptive future ruler of the Austro-Hungarian Empire — was assassinated on the streets of Sarajevo touching off the first world war.

This was apparently the era before clickbait headlines, because The New York Times' news analysis told us "Tragedy May Alter Politics of Europe."

What's more, in an excellent demonstration of the fact that journalism is really hard and past events were less predictable than they seem in retrospect, the analysis of how the assassination would alter the politics of Europe was completely wrong.

The Times reported that "in Russia, England, and France the Archduke Francis Ferdinand was regarded as one of the most serious dangers to the European peace" while "even in Germany his accession to the throne was viewed with apprehension." Their view was that Franz Ferdinand was a proponent of an aggressively anti-Serbian foreign policy, and that his removal from the order of succession made a Balkan conflict less likely.

By contrast, the new heir apparent, "while popular in Vienna is described as a young man of no remarkable ability."

The Times did, however, also feature a small aggregation story from Paris rounding out up the French press' analysis of the situation. This was considerably more accurate than the original story, noting that in France "several journals express the fear that the consequences will be sufficiently serious again to plunge the Balkans, if not Europe, into a conflict. "

Source: New York Times

Last, because nothing ever changes, there was an advertisement related to a new employer insurance mandate.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via