Customer Reviews

All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I had been looking forward eagerly to All Governments Lie, Myra MacPherson's thorough study of I.F. Stone's work and times. I had a deep personal interest in the project and confess to being absolutely delighted with the results.

I mention a deep personal interest and the reasons for this are many. For starters: I am a contemporary and there aren't too many of us left. It is true that he was 10 years my senior but still we shared depression and war and cold war years. I can't say that we knew each other, although we did meet on a few widely scattered occasions, but I did attend his school, The University of Pennsylvania. There in his home town of Philadelphia, I moved in circles that included relatives and friends with whom he had grown up. That enables me to say that I had a good second hand acquaintance with him.

I introduce myself in this manner to justify the comments I am about to make about the book. I confine myself to just one area of the book's treatment of the life of the man the author calls "the rebel journalist". I felt warm satisfaction in the way she swept into the garbage pail the ludicrous charge that Stone was guilty of espionage for the Soviet Union. She is convincing on the subject and reminds us of what should put an end to this baseless gossip. The F.B.I. never found one shred of evidence, and it was not for lack of trying.

J. Edgar Hoover was a stubborn, determined man when he had a hated target in his sights. He despised Stone to the point where he had made up his mind to get rid of him. To him the Stone threat was in the same class as those of Martin Luther King and Albert Einstein and we recall the viciousness and relentlessness of his attempts to ruin them. On the matter of the espionage smear, I can state with warm satisfaction now, because of this book: "Case closed!"

On a related theme, Ms MacPherson demonstrates a level of insight and understanding not always displayed by writers discussing her book. She comprehends, as they do not, that one had to have lived through the epoch to realize how it was possible to have taken pro-Soviet stands in the 1930s and '40s. With the hind sight of this century one can sneer at one who was so blind as to be taken in by Joseph Stalin. But for one who lived through the period, and Ms. MacPherson did not, I am in a position to make some points on this.

Those of us who lived during those years with our eyes and ears open, were aware of the threat that soon developed into the nightmare of World War II. We saw in Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia and Hitler's various menacing moves what the world would be faced with if measures weren't taken. Yet it was only the Soviet representative at the League of Nations during the mid to late 30s, Maxim Litvinov, who stood up and made the much needed accusations and called for collective security. The Italian and German n delegations walked out and the representatives of the great democracies remained cowed and silent. Let me add to this the shameful memory of the Spanish Civil War and the so called Non-intervention Committee. Only The Soviet Union and Mexico came to the aid of the legitimately elected government of Republican Spain.

Many highly respected people wrote admiringly of the Soviet Union, from the muckraking journalist, Lincoln Steffens, to Beatrice and Sidney Webb to Ambassador Joseph E. Davies to the saintly Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury Cathedral.

If you weren't there then, it's easy to look back now and ask: "How could he not have known?" Well, Myra MacPherson wasn't there then, but she has the insight to reveal the situation that existed and to explain the way decent people lined up.

This book is a must reading for younger generations who know so little about these times.

With the hindsight of several decades, it is easy to poke holes in I.F. Stone's writings. Yes, his notion of combining a free society with socialism was utopian. Yes, his economic arguments tend to be wooly in the extreme. Yes, he was wrong in denying the Soviet connections of some of his communist friends. Stone's books stay fresh despite those mistakes because he was right about a lot: governments, racism, wars.

He was so right that what he says about the cold war and Korea and Vietnam provides insight into the wars America wages today. Beyond the light he sheds on specific events, Stone offers an alternative model of journalism. His journalism, based on a close reading of all sources, is independent of the powers that be. Today's news reporting is dominated by the hypocrisy of the "he said, she said" model: include a counter-quote and the story supposedly becomes neutral. Stone was not politically neutral, but he was independent and truthful. He did not regurgitate the received view. He would not have fallen for the addled rationales that skewed public opinion in favor of starting the war in Iraq.

MacPherson's biography is a great way to get to know the irrepressible, fiercely intelligent and marvelously funny Izzy--a man who retains his curiosity and innocence even as he fights against injustice and idiocy and is beset by malignant bureaucrats and scheming politicos. It's not about his private life, but the book does bring the man to life.

Through Stone, one understands American history with all its grandness and squalor, in ways rarely available from history books. MacPherson has done a service to the Republic in bringing together this mass of material and preserving the memory of an outstanding American. Anybody who cares about the country should read it.

I.F. Stone, a great reporter, told the truth to power without giving it a second thought. Would that the current crop of investigative reporters had done the same. This book, beautifully written by former reporter Myra MacPherson, through ten years of interviews and research, puts Stone in context to his times, and will make you wish there was such a person watching Washington today. Buy this book now.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a bit of personal history with Izzy, Esther, and their son Chris, as well as a smaller bit with the author. From 1959 to 1962 I was a classmate and acquaintance of Chris in law school. Chris told me about his dad and convinced me to subscribe to I.F. Stone's Weekly, which I continued to do until its demise. Sometime in 1966 or 1967 while living in Washinton, DC, I threw a party and on a whim invited Izzy and Esther, and to my great surprise, they accepted and showed up. Then, to cap it off, two months ago, when I was about halfway through the book, I was at a cocktail party and was introduced to someone named...Myra MacPherson. Of course I was entranced with the bizarre coincidence of meeting someone whose book I was currently reading. I mention all this in case you might want to discount my enthusiasm for the book because of possible bias.

This book is valuable for so many reasons: first, it tells the story of a life well lived, of a man who had the courage to follow his passion and tell the truth as he saw it, letting the chips fall where they would without being intimidated by any possible reactions. It is an inspirational story. Second, it provides a perspective on American history from the thirties and into the seventies, with Izzy's prescience about our role in Vietnam presaging similar concerns about our current role in Iraq. Third, it traces the history of leftist politics with all the various and twisting strands during that period. Fourth, it documents the depredations of the FBI in its view of certain varieties of free speech as subversive, along with those of the House Un-American Activities Committee. And fifth, it reveals pusillanimity of most other journalists, who were passively accepting and passing along goverment lies during that period. All told, quite an accomplishment.

If I have a quibble, it would be the 600+ page length, especially all the space devoted to each FBI report. I kept thinking, "Enough already--I get it!" Also, I felt concerned that the formidable length might deter potential readers, and that would be a shame because this book is a gem, a slightly oversize gem perhaps, but a gem nonetheless.

This is a wonderful, thoughtful and extremely interesting book. We can always learn from the past. Myra MacPherson tells a compelling story. A fascinating must read!!!
SBB
San Francisco,Ca.

This is a good book, although I agree that it's too long. My one quibble is with the subtitle, specifically: "Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone." Izzy Stone is one of the few celebrities I admire, but he was no rebel. The noun "rebel" means "To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority." Stone certainly did not support the idea of opposing the United States government by force. The very foundation of I. F. Stone's Weekly, and his rare genius, lay in exposing government misdeeds and power abuses by revealing the government's own words! Hardly a rebellious act. As to refusing allegiance, although Stone was no blind patriot, he refused allegiance to the illegitimate authority of the likes of Joseph McCarthy, HUAC loyalty oaths, and the infamous J. Edgar Hoover. Stone was a reformer, in the best sense of that word. He was no rebel.
On the other hand, if the English language has so deteriorated that I.F. Stone was a rebel, then we need millions more like him!

Excellent biography of a unique and gutsy journalist, and a well-conceived history of the issues that Stone confronted. I found the coverage of the cold war and McCarthyism particularly interesting.

I enjoyed this book about a writer whom I had always found fascinating, ever since learning about Stone many years ago from the film "I.F. Stone's Weekly", and seeing Stone defend his position on Palestinian rights at an appearance before an unfriendly audience in a large, metropolitan synagogue. I am also a great fan of his book, "Underground to Palestine".

MacPherson's book is also a nice history of the mid 20th century, with interesting observations on the influence of the left. The point that Stone would have been a great resource during the recent past episodes of government deception, and that there appears no one to take his place among today's journalists, is well made.

However, I am forced to question the accuracy of this book and wonder if Ms. MacPherson goes too far in trying to deify a subject she obviously admires, because on one questionable fact which I noted (and unfortunately, this forces me to question the overall accuracy of the book). Ms. MacPherson refers to Moe Annenberg, father of the late publisher, philanthropist, Republican fund raiser and former Ambassador Walter Annnenberg as a "mob boss", a term which connotes the likes of Meyer Lansky and the like. My understanding, from a none too friendly biography of Walter Annenberg written at the height of his power, is that his father, Moe, who did go to prison for tax evasion, was involved in gambling as the publisher of The Racing Form, but never a "mob boss" as we understand the term. This causes me to question the accuracy of the book as a whole, and certainly affected my view. Either Ms. MacPherson and her editor need better fact checking, or her personal point of view caused her to cross the line. It is interesting that defamation law which protects against such things offers no protection for the deceased.
I cling to the hope that this was just an isolated error, because Stone was one of a kind, and despite the prevalence of independent bloggers (many of whom disdain research, fact checking or editorial oversight), the type of independent journalist we sorely miss today.

i 'm an i.f. stone fan,even with the kgb connection brouhaha i admire his guts ,tenacity,humor and his prodigious talents.with all that said,this book has been marred by the author's obvious hatred of people on the right.starting with an unbelievably biased and mean spirited forward(also much too long-pity that space wasn't used for more than just venting her spleen at george bush),the author sprinkles her bile thruought the text .we get it already!bush lied! kids died!the neo-cons got draft defered or joined the guard!mccarthy was evil!(he was) anything on bubba avoiding the draft?nope.this story of an american original-a giant of investigative reporting-deserved to be told without the author's agenda screaming from the page.iknow ,iknow the press has given the bushies a free ride on iraq.judith miller is no i.f. stone,no kidding!but in all this where are her asides on jfk's peccadillos,clinton's campaign finance and national security issues and the media's blindness to these.when she stuck to stone and his life and times, the book soared.i'm no professional writer,but i know a great story when i see one.try writing that.

To his throngs of fans, he was a "rebel" who stood up to the powerful and exposed the lies they told those beneath them. Always digging to find the truth in a story, and expose the corrupt use and abuses of power.

However, to a more objective observer, Stone's lust for the "truth" only extended to the United States and her allies. For the early part of his career he was remarkably silent on the Soviets and other progressive "bulwarks against fascism". After his romance with the Soviets ended, he continued to afford their third world proxies, from Castro to Ho Chi Minh, the same uncritical support.

While McPherson is partially correct in her assessment that Stone was not "officially" (wink wink, nudge nudge) working for the NKVD/KGB, she is dead wrong that Stone was not mentioned in the VENONA cables as "BLIN" and that he was not an "agent of influence" for the Soviets. The definitive book on the subject (which McPherson uses as a source) by Haynes and Klehr is quite explicit on the fact that the Blin was Stone's code name, and that he was open to recruitment by the NKVD, although nothing came of it because he feared the FBI would find out. Stone did cooperate with the KGB, Kalugin makes this 100% clear. Stone's willingness to uncritically regurgitate Soviet propaganda is why would the Soviets never had to buy the cow. McPherson uses the ploy of minimizing the evidence and overstating the accusation.

From Stone's lies about Syngman Rhee starting the Korean War, to his lies about the US's use of biological weapons against the North Korean and Chinese forces, to his continued defense of Alger Hiss (birds of a feather I suppose) and to his long and slavish devotion to Soviet socialism and later just Soviet style socialism, he has demonstrated himself less a journalist and more the type of propagandist he accused everyone else of. While I am sure that all of Stone's conclusion were "gleaned from key pieces of official documents" his shockingly poor judgment on some of the most critical questions of the 20th century, and the tortured logic he used to defend these positions, certainly does not qualify him for the showers of praise and respect he now receives.

McPherson obviously has a blind spot for Stone and this trite, hero worshipping, agitprop of a biography is a reflection of that. Any reading of this book should be tempered with that fact.