Top critical review
9 people found this helpful
Little more than left wing hero worship
on July 19, 2009
Guttenplan, like most of the left is smitten with Stone's left-wing politics more than his journalism. Stone missed and ignored the biggest stories of the last century because he was so ideologically wedded to marxism. I doubt he ever really realized that people who thought they were fighting for Socialism, such as, well, himself, were really fighting for gutter Russian nationalism. He knew nothing about economics and under-estimated the resilience and strength of capitalism. Every third world revolutionary movement from Cuba to Vietnam to China was going to show the west that socialism could put on a kinder more gentile face and when they inevitably failed to live up to this standard, it was primarily the fault of the United States.
Arguable Stone's biggest scoop was the "Gulf of Tonkin, but this too was more an extension of his politics rather than any journalistic skill he had. Stone couldn't prove that the Gulf of Tonkin was a "set up" but went to press with the story any way based on his instincts. Turns out he was right, but this same "blame the West first" mentality that afflicted Stone also caused him to report, quite erroneously, that South Korea had "provoked" war with the North by invading them firs, with US backing naturally. Following the same mentality, Stone declared that the Tet offensive was a decisive strategic military victory for Hanoi.
Charges that Stone was a covert Soviet agent are documentable and fully supported, this is no longer the realm of speculation. Stone knew who he was dealing with, that is he was fully aware that the Soviet individuals he was communicating with were covert KGB agents. He consciously cooperated with Soviet intelligence for several years after some of their most horrid atrocities had been made public. Guttenplan's inability to come come to this conclusion turns what could have been a fair biography into more left wing hero worship.