Based on an examination of 90 books and journal articles, this paper provides an analysis of the interpretations historians have used in explaining American journalism during the national crises of 1917-1945 (World War I, the Depression, and World War II). The paper concludes that, in general, the historians defined three divergent approaches to evaluating the press during that period: (1) the Progressive/Liberal approach, which enbodied a conflict approach to history, and which saw differences among sections of American society as the underlying causes of change in history; (2) the Consensus approach, which played down the differences among Americans and emphasized the ideas and beliefs shared by them, and which favored journalism philosophies and activities that were nationalistic in outlook; and (3) the Developmental approach, which assumed that the proper stance of the press should be neither liberal nor conservative, but apolitical, and which viewed the history of journalism not as the story of how the press stood on issues, but of how it performed its professional role as an informer of the public, supporter of press freedom, and watchdog over government. The paper analyzes each of these three approaches and summarizes representative works from each school. (FL)