User:KWatson/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 19:

deadly parallel if you ask me” (McCaw, Note)**. Edwin James, the managing editor and McCaw’s boss, eventually agreed with Matthews’ defense: “It is quite apparent that you did not file any duplicate of the Hemingway story, or vice versa. As I understand it, the similarity arose from the fact that you

Page break 428-429

~~Page break~~

both went to see the same show and saw it at the same time [sic], under the same conditions” (James, Letter to Herbert).

Matthews’ dispatches ring of Republican bias as much if not more than anything Hemingway ever filed. The ''Times'' received many letters to the editor complaining about Matthews’ undisguised politics, which also gave serious concern to some of his editors. His description of the Republican May 1937 infighting in Barcelona is a striking example of how his news veered

into propaganda and shows just how much he passed along the government’s version of events. The government’s “Bloodless triumph fought with recognized weapons of democracy” turned out to be blatantly false, as the government and the “Communists [who] distinguish themselves” resorted to violent suppression. His blaming the uprising on the anarchist CNT working as Fran cooperatives parrots the government’s and the communist party’s public position, even though both charges—that the anarchists precipitated the events and that they were under Nationalist direction—were also false. His dispatch’s optimistic close also equivocates the political reality: “New Government has taken power which appears tove confidence cast majority Spaniards in loyalist territory and tis hoped will gain equal confidence abroad stop violence and revolution been repudiated and new and far hopeful period seems beginning. (McCaw, Letter to Edwin, 20 May 1937). The ''Times'', knowing full well the one-sided coverage of a correspondent writing from one side of the conflict, had a reporter on both sides: Matthews with the Republicans, and William Carney with the Nationalists. They got their facts right (or wrong) as often as the other, their editors concluded (James, Letter to Bertrand)**; and they inspired about the same number of letters of complaint (James, Letter to M.B. Tenney)**

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 deadly parallel if you ask me” (McCaw, Note)**. Edwin James, the managing editor and McCaw’s boss, eventually agreed with Matthews’ defense: “It is quite apparent that you did not file any duplicate of the Hemingway story, or vice versa. As I understand it, the similarity arose from the fact that you
+Page break 428-429
-Page break
+both went to see the same show and saw it at the same time [sic], under the same conditions” (James, Letter to Herbert).
+Matthews’ dispatches ring of Republican bias as much if not more than anything Hemingway ever filed. The ''Times'' received many letters to the editor complaining about Matthews’ undisguised politics, which also gave serious concern to some of his editors. His description of the Republican May 1937 infighting in Barcelona is a striking example of how his news veered
+into propaganda and shows just how much he passed along the government’s version of events. The government’s “Bloodless triumph fought with recognized weapons of democracy” turned out to be blatantly false, as the government and the “Communists [who] distinguish themselves” resorted to violent suppression. His blaming the uprising on the anarchist CNT working as Fran cooperatives parrots the government’s and the communist party’s public position, even though both charges—that the anarchists precipitated the events and that they were under Nationalist direction—were also false. His dispatch’s optimistic close also equivocates the political reality: “New Government has taken power which appears tove confidence cast majority Spaniards in loyalist territory and tis hoped will gain equal confidence abroad stop violence and revolution been repudiated and new and far hopeful period seems beginning. (McCaw, Letter to Edwin, 20 May 1937). The ''Times'', knowing full well the one-sided coverage of a correspondent writing from one side of the conflict, had a reporter on both sides: Matthews with the Republicans, and William Carney with the Nationalists. They got their facts right (or wrong) as often as the other, their editors concluded (James, Letter to Bertrand)**; and they inspired about the same number of letters of complaint (James, Letter to M.B. Tenney)**