User:KWatson/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 25:

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)**

Furthermore, Matthews’ dispatches received a great deal of substantive editorial revisions. One of Matthews’ Teruel reports had to be cut for length, as McCaw informed James: “This bird sent 2844 words on the same facts which Hemingway covered much better in less than half that number. I wonder if Matthews thinks the paper is thriving, and that cable tolls do not matter a damn. Of course, it had to be cut for space anyway.” McCaw most likely refers here to Matthews’ dispatch corresponding to Hemingway’s “The Attack on Teruel” (McCaw, Letter to Edwin, 20 Dec. 1937), though Matthews’

account of the fall of Teruel is also much longer (and more long-winded) than Hemingway’s, and just as personal in terms of describing the dangers

Page break 429-430

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 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)**
+Furthermore, Matthews’ dispatches received a great deal of substantive editorial revisions. One of Matthews’ Teruel reports had to be cut for length, as McCaw informed James: “This bird sent 2844 words on the same facts which Hemingway covered much better in less than half that number. I wonder if Matthews thinks the paper is thriving, and that cable tolls do not matter a damn. Of course, it had to be cut for space anyway.” McCaw most likely refers here to Matthews’ dispatch corresponding to Hemingway’s “The Attack on Teruel” (McCaw, Letter to Edwin, 20 Dec. 1937), though Matthews’
+account of the fall of Teruel is also much longer (and more long-winded) than Hemingway’s, and just as personal in terms of describing the dangers
+Page break 429-430