Customer Reviews

The Man Who Invented Fidel: Castro, Cuba, and Herbert L. Matthews of The New York Times

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

New York Timesman DePalma provides an excellent, balanced examination of his newspaper's controversial role in Castro's rise to power nearly five decades ago.

The Times scored a journalistic coup in February 1957, when its veteran war correspondent, Herbert Matthews, landed an exclusive interview with Castro in defiance of the dictator Batista's censorship edict. Matthews's explosive page-one story revealed to the world that the young Cuban rebel -- widely thought to have been killed by Batista's forces -- was "still alive and waging a successful guerrilla campaign" in the Sierra Maestra mountains. It's clear that Matthews' story exaggerated Castro's strength and prospects, although it's not true, as Castro later claimed, that he was down to just 18 men and had them march around in circles in order to deceive Matthews.

Matthews was guilty of gullibility, or worse. He had taken sides in the Cuban revolution. And in this regard, he was a repeat offender: his coverage of the Spanish Civil War had been biased in favor of the Loyalists. And before that, he openly supported Mussolini in his conquest of Ethiopia.

Matthews was one of those reporters who saw himself as a shaper of events, not just a chronicler of them -- a dubious prospect for a profession founded on trust and objectivity. The Times compounded this situation by permitting Matthews to serve simultaneously as news reporter and editorial writer -- an experiment the paper soon abandoned. Although denied the paper's new columns to advance his cause, Matthews continued to write editorials in support of Castro, even when it became plain that the Cuban strongman had abandoned all pretense to democratic, constitutional governance.

Matthews is still an object of opprobrium for many Cuban-Americans, and continues to be hailed as a revolutionary hero among Castro loyalists. It's disturbing that a seasoned journalist -- let alone one associated with one of the world's most influential publications -- would put himself in such an untenable situation.

It's only when the books are written that we understand what happened. During the time the events are happening our knowledge was simply too little. It makes me feel old when I think back to the newspaper reports that I was reading at the time, now fifty years ago.

As I read this book I found myself full of random and somewhat conflicting thoughts.

First was the thought that Castro was an expert at public relations and was able to find exactly the right man to publicize his struggle and at exactly the right time.

Second was the attitude of the paper. Most of us, at the time, thought that Castro meant was was being written as quotations. It came as a surprise when he viered left. I find myself still puzzled. Was Castro a dedicated communist all the time and merely fooled the Americans? I believe that it was Truman who later said, 'I should have called him and asked him what he needed to make Cuba better.' Could that have changed things?

Matthews was an unabashed liberal. His views on previous wars such as the Spanish Civil War unfailingly took the left wing side. And where does the responsibility of a journalist lie, what about that of a columnist, and Matthews was both?

It also reminded me that Castro will be eighty years old in August. What happens now?

While many will buy this book to learn about Cuba and Castro, I think its greater value will be for those interested in journalism. How close can a reporter be to his or her source before bias surely intrudes? When does a reporter's decided notions of what ought to happen, prevent even-handed and clear reporting? How much backing--or control-- should be given an experienced reporter by a newspaper's editors?

To me, the story of Herbert L. Matthews is of current interest not because of what happened with Castro over fifty years ago--but of how it informs today's debate over current journalistic standards at The New York Times and other major media outlets.

This is an excellent book very well documented, but i believe it should had been titled 'The man (castro)that fooled and used Herbert'),sorry to note that the book has two historical mistakes;On page 69 the author wrote that Angel Castro was a spanish soldier that fought in the spanish side of the Spanish -American War, and never returned to Spain, this is incorrect it is true that he fought in that war from 1895 to 1898 as a soldier,under the orders of General Martinez Campos, but after the war he returned to Spain and came back to Cuba as an inmigrant in 1902, there is also a mistake in his quote on page 14 he quoted the following "it wasn't a landing ,it was a shipwreck"
and he attribute this words to Juan Manuel Martinez; this is incorrect the one that said those words was Che Guevara
besides this, it is a very interesting book i will give it 5 stars

DePalma, Anthony 2006 The Man Who Invented Fidel: Castro, Cuba, and Herbert L. Matthews of The New York Times. Public Affairs (Perseus), Cambridge MA ISBN-10 1586483323, ISBN-13 978-1586483326 This book is a cornucopia of factual information rarely found in other English language studies on Cuban matters. The significance of Ruby Phillips a reporter far more experienced and attuned to the Cuban circumstance that Matthews is well described. In my view DePalma still accepts far too readily some of the nonsense on the repression of the country folk "Los Montunos" in the Sierra; apparently the author did not fully realize these mountain peoples had considerable legal and constitutional protection; which gave them access to lawyers such as Manuel R. Penabaz Tobio. DePalma falls into the common error of labeling the Sierra Maestra inhabitants as "peasants," which is not an appropriate term for the once mounted and armed inhabitants of the area. However, to one has to give the author great credit for his mention of the background of Eutimio Guerra (pages 33 and 34 but apparently not included in the index); which is more than most give to this Auténtico Party agrarian reform activist. Still the author accepts, without caveats, the Castro version of events which were used to justify Guerra's execution. Pages 83-84 tell how Celia prepared the illusion of a potent and far more numerous guerrilla forces for Matthews visit. Such a careful function, plus her role as armed guerrilla leader before Castro landed, and her ability to override or direct Castro in the mountains (described in other sources) seems far more consistent with a minder role, than merely that of a woman in love as she is often portrayed. On page 265 for example the author, unlike many academics and other Castro apologists, DePalma calls it close to reality e .g. "... For decades, all but the most radical works about Castro have essentially balanced his idealism and uncanny ability to survive against the ruthlessness of his dictatorship. To people everywhere in the ..." In summary balance this is an excellent book full of useful information and should be read by all those interested in Cuba and especially in the process of corruption of reporters which turns them into "Agents of Influence."

Now that it seems likely Castro's regime is finally waltzing through its twilight years in Cuba, this book provides a timely look back at how it all started. It seems reports of his death were greatly exaggerated - back in 1957. That's the year he returned to the Oriente District of Cuba with the ragtag band of revolutionaries he had rallied to the cause of Cuban liberation. For months, everyone in Cuba assumed that he and his entire little brigade had been wiped out by Batista's soldiers as they patrolled that densely wooded part of Cuba's southern coast.

However this book isn't really about Castro. It's about Herbert Matthews, the New York Times reporter who hiked into those woods, got an interview with Castro, and brought out the news that Castro was actually alive and well. It's about how Castro made such an impression on Matthews during that brief interview, that Matthews forever after championed and defended Castro to the American public, denying all the growing suspicions that Castro might turn out to be, not a liberator, but a Communist dictator.

I had hoped that this book might shed some light on how Castro's presumed idealism (if indeed it ever existed) morphed into just another raw exercise of power. But there is no psychological analysis here. There isn't much insight into how yet another revolution turned into tyranny - other than DePalma's observations that Castro was always flexible, looking for the better chance to consolidate his power. You'll have to look to other books for deeper answers to why so many revolutions fail, if in fact such answers exist anywhere.

This book stays more exclusively with Matthews. It tracks his dogged belief in Castro's overall good intentions. And it follows the public's reaction to Matthews' reporting - from initial enthusiastic acceptance of Matthew's heroic view of Castro, to repudiation and even revilement.

DePalma's writing tends to be plain and reportorial, although he does get in the occasional telling turn-of-phrase - as for example when he compares Matthews to a piñata that so many delighted in bashing for America's failed forecasting of Castro's intentions. Generally though, DePalma just writes good clear sentences that make for easy reading. In a relatively short time, this book will arc you the whole way from Castro's rebel retreat, through the Bay of Pigs, and on to the more recent stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba.

It is very important reading for those that need evidence of the power of the US media and its ability to influence history. Always current reading!

Correspondent in Spain,

Veteran New York Times correspondent Anthony DePalma has written a history book that could not be better timed for the future - the future of Cuba and the future of U.S. relations with the island nation 90 miles to the south of Key West, Fla., as well, perhaps, for the future of journalism.

Anyone with any interest in Fidel Castro, or how honest correspondents view their roles in history as well as purpose, should buy this book. Anyone with any interest in Fidel's brother, Raul's, history in the making of modern Cuba, or U.S. attitudes toward Fidel - which even at the State Department changed from admiration to suspicion to outright attempts to remove him from power, killing him if possible - should read this book about The New York Times correspondent who was the first to report Castro's survival in the Sierra Maestra and how and why his personal attitudes helped shape those of some in government as well as in the American public.

What happened to Matthews is an object lesson in what happens when correspondents believe they are the only ones who truly know what is happening, or who is causing it to happen, or why it is happening. Castro, according to the book, appears to be an early master at selectively providing access to "favorable" reporters and using that relationship to shape his "message." That the messages contained outright lies to shape opinion in his favor did not appear to revive all journalists' best tool - a healthy dose of suspicion about the motives of the one providing the access, and the message.

DePalma appropriately mentions modern reporters who have publicly been "burned" by their own egos or desires to burnish their public image with interviews or access, as well as felt the pressure of their employers to get information no one else has - singling out the recent cases at his own newspaper of Jason Blair and Judith Miller - and even the readers' lack of skepticism in what they read or hear from "trusted sources."

But he notes that, despite his own belief, Herbert L. Matthews did not actually invent Fidel Castro. And, in fact, there were forces at work jealous or angry of Matthews' access and real journalistic coup - "scoop," in the old vernacular - of being the first to interview the young rebel before the ouster of Fulgencio Batista, the dictator favored by the U.S. government prior to Castro's successful taking of power.

About the only flaw I could note in the excellent study presented almost as an adventure novel, or a modern tragedy, is the omission - either deliberate or by chance - of the pertinent fact that Matthews had personal enemies in Cuba prior to his interview with Castro. Matthews first gained notoriety covering Benito Mussolini's war in Abbysinia, during which he politically and publicly admired Italian Fascism; next, he gained notoriety covering The Spanish Civil War, in which he ultimately supported - as did Ernest Hemingway, his friend - the dying Spanish Republic, which lost the war to Generalisimo Francisco Franco.

In Spain at the same time, and writing a book that was extremely supportive and understanding of Franco's invasion from Morroco to protect and defend the Catholic Church's influence and the monarchy from the increasingly left-leaning democratically elected Spainish government, was H.E. Knoblaugh - a correspondent for The Associated Press.

Knoblaugh became eventually FBI Special Agent in Charge in Havana, Cuba. It was, in fact, Knoblaugh who kept "tabs" on his former acquaintances and rivals Matthews and Hemingway. It was Knoblaugh, then, who sent memos to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover about the activities of both men, as well as "profiles" of their personalities and behavior.

If Matthews (and Hemingway) injected too much personal opinion in his articles - Matthews was, technically, an editorial writer for his newspaper by the time he went to Cuba, not an "objective" journalist - Knoblaugh appeared to eagerly and easily pass off whatever outlandish story he heard that fit his opinion as fact.

So there you had it: Matthews, writing in the vein of other correspondents who became famous for their adventures, such as Richard Harding Davis (who covered the Spanish-American War), James Creelman (who personally, according to himself, led the charge up El Caney in the same war for William Randolph Hearst) and Januarius MacGahan, the "Liberator of Bulgaria," and Knoblaugh, trying to paint Matthews as "a Red" for supporting the overthrow of a U.S.-friendly dictator.

DePalma's book is, ultimately, a warning to journalists of the future - even if your coverage is subjective, so that you gain a name among your readers, remember a cardinal rule that should survive all debate about the value, falicy or noble attempt at "objectivity": the story isn't about you.

In this book we gain a semi-sympathetic portrait of an old dinosaur print media journalist who was NOT fair, not balanced who himself decided to "puff" up Castro.
Others have noted how Castro "used" Matthews. To wit while in the tent with Matthews Castro had the same formation of men march around them repeatedly, to create the impression of a battalion instead of a platoon or company.
Castro came along at a time when for the first time ever the media could create and annoint a heroic idol figure. The image captivated just enough folks so that inquiry into and analysis of policy, ideology was deemed un-necessary. Castro appealed to the long-suffering Cuban hopes for change.
As to whether turning Cuba into a Cold War Soviet satellite/missile base was the plan from the git go? Who can really say? I think as with the current president there was a lot of "make it up as you go along" improvisation by the Castro brothers [although Raul appears to be far more sadistic, brutal and at the same time less ideological than el hermano grande] Many who worked so hard to bring Fidel to power werent communists: Raul Chibas and Huber Matos come to mind.
To counter-balance this book make sure you read "Against All Hope" by Valladares and "Waiting for Snow in Havana" by Carlos Eire.

In modern day journalism I'm sure ea and every statemt made by a Castro would be "fact-checked" by another writer who would have been detailed to go along with the Batista forces. No time since has any overseas writer been so willing to let statements go unexamined.

It takes a lot of fortitude for a New York Times writer to tackle this subject, one certain to cast the Times in a less than shimmering light. Author Anthony DePalma notes that in his acknowledgments when he says that "Bill Keller, executive editor,...winced when he heard that I was writing about [Herbert L.] Matthews after so many unflattering books about the newspaper were being published but encouraged me anyway." What DePalma reveals - through some magnificent research and writing - is a situation far more complex than one reporter's "self-confessed passion for underdogs," which made him "easily won over by those he covered, regardless of their politics."

Matthews is pegged as the first of a long line of individuals taken in by Fidel Castro, who - as DePalma perfectly notes - "was capable of constantly reinventing himself and creating myths about his persona and his beliefs...he had become a political chameleon who could bedevil both friends and enemies."

DePalma's tour de force chapter is the penultimate one entitled "A Cordial Witness." I have passages flagged on almost every other page. One standout is this one: "Che understood the value of Matthews' bias from the outset, as had Castro, because both men were masters of propaganda and manipulators of image. They were far more perceptive in this regard than Matthews. They exploited Matthews' bias while he never accepted the notion that his writing had created a skewed picture of reality that, for a time, had become reality itself."

Mr. DePalma does a fantastic job synthesizing original material from the Matthews Library at Columbia University (Matthews kept every scrap of paper he had ever scribbled on), the New York Times files (which reveal deep concerns about Matthews' partisanship throughout his long career), FBI files about Matthews (DePalma filed a request under the Freedom of Information act), and recollections from Matthews' son and daughter which included the big surprise of a last unpublished manuscript - in longhand - in the possession of Priscilla Matthews.

This is an excellent book, surely the best I've read this year.