User:KWatson/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 108:

another do not relive the original reading experience. Hemingway wrote dispatches sporadically, papers did not run all of his dispatches, papers edited and cut them, and readers read at least a couple of papers’ worth of other articles in between. He told Edmund Wilson as much in defending himself against Wilson’s critique of the selected (and heavily edited and cut) dispatches reprinted in ''Fact'' without his consent: “If you are being paid to be shot at and write about it you are supposed to mention the shooting. [. . .] But I do not go in for re-printing journalism” (Hemingway, Letter to Edmund).

If we can in this way better understand his style, and at least explain it if not excuse it, we similarly ought to try to contextualize—and perhaps excuse—the moral problem. The two issues here are the specific condemnation of Hemingway’s silence about Republican atrocities and the general question of biased reporting (the latter of which has already partially been addressed).

Hemingway knew, as Donaldson writes, that mentioning the atrocities “would arouse anticommunist sentiments back in the States and effectively undermine any possibility of American intervention” (394). It is also doubtful that reporting them would have stopped them. But reporting Republican atrocities from Spain was not possible for the simple reason that all dispatches went through a government censor. Matthews cabled his editors from Paris in May 1937 to tell them that “censorship does not permit us to say when the ‘telefonica’ is hit. So, whenever you see reference in my dispatches [sic] to ‘an important building in the center of the city’ or words to that effect, the cable desk can know that it is the telefonica” (Letter to Edwin, 8 May 1937). As already noted, by July he would cable “Censorship Stricter” as the ban on mentioning internationals went into effect (Letter to Edwin,6 July 1937; Letter to Edwin, July 1937). Cowles’ memoir confirms the aggressive censorship, observing that it limited journalists to exactly the kind of material Hemingway wrote about:

blcokquote** There were frequent attempts to “beat the censor” by employing American slang expressions, but this came to an end when a Canadian girl joined the staff. The International Brigades were not allowed to be publicized; no reference could be made to Russian armaments, and buildings and streets which suffered

bombardments could not be identified.

Page break

It was only in the realm of the human interest story that the journalists had a free hand. They could describe bombardments to their heart’s content. (20)blockquote**

Hemingway and everyone else—to reserve incrimination for Hemingway is hardly just. No correspondent covering Republican Spain reported suspicious imprisonments and disappearances by government agents.

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 another do not relive the original reading experience. Hemingway wrote dispatches sporadically, papers did not run all of his dispatches, papers edited and cut them, and readers read at least a couple of papers’ worth of other articles in between. He told Edmund Wilson as much in defending himself against Wilson’s critique of the selected (and heavily edited and cut) dispatches reprinted in ''Fact'' without his consent: “If you are being paid to be shot at and write about it you are supposed to mention the shooting. [. . .] But I do not go in for re-printing journalism” (Hemingway, Letter to Edmund).
+If we can in this way better understand his style, and at least explain it if not excuse it, we similarly ought to try to contextualize—and perhaps excuse—the moral problem. The two issues here are the specific condemnation of Hemingway’s silence about Republican atrocities and the general question of biased reporting (the latter of which has already partially been addressed).
+Hemingway knew, as Donaldson writes, that mentioning the atrocities “would arouse anticommunist sentiments back in the States and effectively undermine any possibility of American intervention” (394). It is also doubtful that reporting them would have stopped them. But reporting Republican atrocities from Spain was not possible for the simple reason that all dispatches went through a government censor. Matthews cabled his editors from Paris in May 1937 to tell them that “censorship does not permit us to say when the ‘telefonica’ is hit. So, whenever you see reference in my dispatches [sic] to ‘an important building in the center of the city’ or words to that effect, the cable desk can know that it is the telefonica” (Letter to Edwin, 8 May 1937). As already noted, by July he would cable “Censorship Stricter” as the ban on mentioning internationals went into effect (Letter to Edwin,6 July 1937; Letter to Edwin, July 1937). Cowles’ memoir confirms the aggressive censorship, observing that it limited journalists to exactly the kind of material Hemingway wrote about:
+blcokquote** There were frequent attempts to “beat the censor” by employing American slang expressions, but this came to an end when a Canadian girl joined the staff. The International Brigades were not allowed to be publicized; no reference could be made to Russian armaments, and buildings and streets which suffered
+bombardments could not be identified.
+Page break
+It was only in the realm of the human interest story that the journalists had a free hand. They could describe bombardments to their heart’s content. (20)blockquote**
+Hemingway and everyone else—to reserve incrimination for Hemingway is hardly just. No correspondent covering Republican Spain reported suspicious imprisonments and disappearances by government agents.