Would you be proud of yourself if your works were commemorated for helping put in power a murderous Communist who has killed thousands upon thousands of his own people over a 40 some year reign of terror?
Cuba’s tyrant in chief, Fidel Castro, is so honoring the New York Times writer who made Fidel into a mythic “man of the people”, Herbert Matthews. A plaque honoring this foolish, naive writer Matthews, was unveiled on Saturday in the Sierra Maestra mountains.
When the fights against the Cuban government of Fulgencio Batista began in the late 1950s, Fidel Castro was just one of several guerilla fighters trying to vie for followers and publicity. Castro was just a nut in the wilderness with few followers, though, until Herbert Matthews and the New York Times came along.
Matthews was such a fawning fool for Castro that the rebel leader was able to bamboozle the star struck reporter over the size of Castro’s forces. Castro joked years later that he was able to fool Matthews into imagining that he had hundreds of fighting men by parading the same 18 guys past the reporter in different hats and jackets. This little ruse made the child-like writer report that Castro had a great army behind him and the publicity freely given by the New York Times via Matthews gave Castro the legitimacy he needed to take over the Island nation.
Matthews even went so far as to downplay Castro’s communist ideology along the way easing fears in the US that Castro would be a communist enemy right off our shores.
As a result of Matthews’ puff pieces on Castro, Fidel gained the power he needed, a power he used to rape the country, murder its people and destroy the economy. And, needless to say, he became an enemy to the USA.
And, Matthews wasn’t the only New York Times writer that was used as a useful idiot to legitimize and soften the murderous nature of a communist dictator. Walter Duranty, another NYT writer, lionized and lied for Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in the 30s, turning Stalin into a folk hero while ignoring the many thousands of his own people he was killing.
So, the NYT has a long tradition of turning murderers into lovable, men of the people. Castro is so appreciative that he is raising a commemorative plaque in the Times’ honor.
But it is a dubious honor, indeed.
So, I ask again, is the New York Times proud of their honor?
Somehow, I’d bet they are.
Loading ...
1 user commented in " Even Castro Knows the NYTimes is on HIS Side "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI find your contribution biased and uninformative. I would love to hear your definitions of exactly what raping a country, murdering its people and destroying the economy constitute. Perhaps look to CNN’s daily reports from Iraq for concrete inspiration?
Fidel Castro is no saint, and I will by no means attempt to defend his policies (although Cubans do enjoy better access to health care and education than Americans), but in the field of murdering tyrants he is by no means the worst. What makes him so easy a target for opinion pieces such as the above is that he happens to be a murdering dictator who refused to align himself with US foreign policy. Well, they’re not all going to, are they?
We also cannot overlook the United States’ unwavering strangulation policy towards Cuba, which is at least partly to blame if not for the murdering (and…raping!?…) at least for the state of the Cuban economy.
Your piece, as I understand it, it aimed at removing bias and lies from reporting, in this case through examples from the New York Times. In doing so, however, you deviate from the very principles you are advocating. You have written a one-sided opinion piece, riddled with personal attacks. Or does your distaste for bias in the media only extend to bias which offers opinions different from those widely accepted in the US?
And what is it you are doing with it, if not demonizing a political figure, using mostly the same tactics that Matthews glorified him through? Your piece makes, you will admit, unsupported claims, and if you wish to distance yourself from those you criticize, I invite you to use more objective language in describing situations which can easily be misrepresented.
Lastly, I find it somewhat outside the spirit of free speech that I, as a responder to your piece, am not allowed to personally attack or insult anyone, while sanctioned editorials allow the use of words like “idiot” and “fawning fool”. There is a reason why those restrictions are in place. They’re there because personal attacks are inappropriate, both in an editorial and in a comment thereto.
I look forward to your response.
Cheers,
Velian P.
Leave A Reply