What do you think?
Rate this book
O homem que inventou Fidel
No começo de 1957, Cuba estava sob rígida censura e a ditadura de Fulgencio Batista afirmava que Fidel morrera, liderando os 82 revolucionários que participaram da desastrada invasão do leste da ilha. Coube a Herbert Matthews, editorialista do New York Times , veterano e respeitado correspondente de muitas guerras, romper a censura e, com uma entrevista bombástica, revelar aos públicos norte-americano e cubano que Fidel estava vivo e organizava uma guerrilha na Sierra Maestra. Mais do que isso, Matthews escreveu que Fidel era "um homem de ideais, de coragem e de notáveis qualidades de liderança", e concluiu que seu movimento era "radical, democrático e, portanto, anticomunista". Os artigos publicados no Times conquistaram o apoio da opinião pública americana para Fidel, o que teria pressionado o governo de Dwight Eisenhower a suspender a ajuda militar a Batista e, em última análise, causado sua queda. E quando Fidel se revelou cada vez mais esquerdista e, finalmente, marxista-leninista, Matthews, mesmo acusado de ter "inventado" Fidel, nunca deixou de julgar equivocada a política externa americana em relação a Cuba, como também continuou obstinadamente afirmando que o líder cubano não era comunista antes de chegar ao poder. E assim arruinou sua reputação de 45 anos de jornalismo, perdeu a credibilidade dentro do próprio Times , tornou-se um bode expiatório e foi taxado de inocente útil e até de traidor da pátria. Ao narrar a história sombria desse jornalista corajoso, Anthony DePalma traça o panorama de uma época que vai do romantismo da Guerra Civil Espanhola, na qual Matthews cobriu o lado dos republicanos, à paranóia dos tempos da Guerra Fria, em que ele foi investigado por comissões macartistas do Senado, vigiado pelo FBI e ameaçado de morte por exilados cubanos. E esses fatos históricos servem para propor questões fundamentais sobre o poder da imprensa, suas relações complexas com a política, sobre os limites
382 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
10 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
November 2, 2014
This is the perfect example of how news can affect the shape and course of history.
Although it is arguable whether Fidel Castro could've triumphed when he did against the Batista regime without the timely help of The New York Times's Herbert L. Matthews, the fact remains that Matthews was instrumental in creating a legend, resurrecting Castro with a vengeance after rumors of his death had been confirmed by Batista's government.
This is the story of the strange relationship between a journalist, the newspaper he worked for, a young rebel turned dictator, and the American public opinion.
It is a thorough study of all the elements that come together to influence events and it is on a league of its own in its genre, its treatment of the subject matter and its principal players, and the careful balance it strikes between what actually happened, what people involved in this story think happened, and how people looking on from the outside perceived what has happening.
Although it is arguable whether Fidel Castro could've triumphed when he did against the Batista regime without the timely help of The New York Times's Herbert L. Matthews, the fact remains that Matthews was instrumental in creating a legend, resurrecting Castro with a vengeance after rumors of his death had been confirmed by Batista's government.
This is the story of the strange relationship between a journalist, the newspaper he worked for, a young rebel turned dictator, and the American public opinion.
It is a thorough study of all the elements that come together to influence events and it is on a league of its own in its genre, its treatment of the subject matter and its principal players, and the careful balance it strikes between what actually happened, what people involved in this story think happened, and how people looking on from the outside perceived what has happening.
July 25, 2015
As a Cubaphile I enjoyed reading this book to learn more about the man who made a significant contribution to the myth of the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro. This book is well-researched and well-written.
December 14, 2019
Veteran international journalist Anthony DePalma offers an excellent analysis and reconstruction of NYT correspondent/martyr, Herbert L. Matthews, the man who allegedly “invented” the Fidel Castro Americans loved to hate. Of course, Castro existed as a Cuban fire-eater long before Matthews’ “discovery,” and would have been a force of power in some form without Matthews or the Times. But it was the confluence of a rebel with a cause and a reporter in search of a rebellion that sparked a personal bond that – like John Reed in Russia – would shake the world.
DePalma is correct in writing that power, not Communism, was the basis of The Cuban Story. Castro’s power over Cuba, equated with its national and economic sovereignty from the beginning, inevitably clashed with an imperial US that just as strongly believed in its rightful sovereignty over the Western Hemisphere. Castro turned to the Communists and Moscow in the same manner his opponents turned to the CIA and Washington: “la lucha continua” - the struggle must continue. DePalma does take the US and its representatives to task for allying with Batista’s corrupt regime, and for bungling the Bay of Pigs; but he shies away from the reasons for this. American policy in Cuba, and Latin American generally, has always been self-serving. If Castro led Cuba into a dead end in the name of Communism, the US offered no alternative other than civil war and foreign occupation and calling it Democracy.
I’ve read Matthews’ books; and in truth they stand up better with time than either admirers like C. Wright Mills, or detractors like NYT colleague, R(uby) Hart Phillips. DePalma contrasts the biases of Phillips and Matthews, whose personal backgrounds couldn’t have been more diverse. Their knife-on-knife professional antagonism holds a key as to why Matthews clung to his rock-ribbed position on the Revolution: Castro had become a personal symbol of resistance. DePalma says as much in writing that Matthews cultivated the “idea of Fidel,” while slighting the real deeds of the real man. So did Phillips, and all the cohort of Fidel fans and Castro-bashers to the present day. It’s at each other these journalists joust, with Castro as proxy. Fidel’s divide and rule worked as well in New York as in Washington, Moscow, or Havana.
The US has, in practice, little use for dissidents from the established consensus. The US press treated Matthews as a renegade, as Pravda did Solzhenitsyn, or Castro himself pilloried Heberto Padilla. Though he wasn’t thrown in jail, nor exiled, nor slandered before Congress as a “Red agent” as in McCarthy days, Matthews’ professional ethics and personal integrity remained under constant attack for the rest of his life. And not just from rightwingers in Miami or J. Edgar Hoover or “The National Review”. Even alleged liberals used him as a covering scapegoat: “better him than us.” Take warning from Matthews and don’t identify with America’s enemies; be willing to change your views if “consensus” demands it; bend or be broken. The US media has learned its lesson well; and you, good reader, have two dead-end wars in Iraq and an endless jihad on terror thanks to your Free Press. Fidel Castro was not responsible for these, no matter how many promises unkept to the peasant family guiding DePalma to the Interview shrine of the Sierra.
DePalma is correct in writing that power, not Communism, was the basis of The Cuban Story. Castro’s power over Cuba, equated with its national and economic sovereignty from the beginning, inevitably clashed with an imperial US that just as strongly believed in its rightful sovereignty over the Western Hemisphere. Castro turned to the Communists and Moscow in the same manner his opponents turned to the CIA and Washington: “la lucha continua” - the struggle must continue. DePalma does take the US and its representatives to task for allying with Batista’s corrupt regime, and for bungling the Bay of Pigs; but he shies away from the reasons for this. American policy in Cuba, and Latin American generally, has always been self-serving. If Castro led Cuba into a dead end in the name of Communism, the US offered no alternative other than civil war and foreign occupation and calling it Democracy.
I’ve read Matthews’ books; and in truth they stand up better with time than either admirers like C. Wright Mills, or detractors like NYT colleague, R(uby) Hart Phillips. DePalma contrasts the biases of Phillips and Matthews, whose personal backgrounds couldn’t have been more diverse. Their knife-on-knife professional antagonism holds a key as to why Matthews clung to his rock-ribbed position on the Revolution: Castro had become a personal symbol of resistance. DePalma says as much in writing that Matthews cultivated the “idea of Fidel,” while slighting the real deeds of the real man. So did Phillips, and all the cohort of Fidel fans and Castro-bashers to the present day. It’s at each other these journalists joust, with Castro as proxy. Fidel’s divide and rule worked as well in New York as in Washington, Moscow, or Havana.
The US has, in practice, little use for dissidents from the established consensus. The US press treated Matthews as a renegade, as Pravda did Solzhenitsyn, or Castro himself pilloried Heberto Padilla. Though he wasn’t thrown in jail, nor exiled, nor slandered before Congress as a “Red agent” as in McCarthy days, Matthews’ professional ethics and personal integrity remained under constant attack for the rest of his life. And not just from rightwingers in Miami or J. Edgar Hoover or “The National Review”. Even alleged liberals used him as a covering scapegoat: “better him than us.” Take warning from Matthews and don’t identify with America’s enemies; be willing to change your views if “consensus” demands it; bend or be broken. The US media has learned its lesson well; and you, good reader, have two dead-end wars in Iraq and an endless jihad on terror thanks to your Free Press. Fidel Castro was not responsible for these, no matter how many promises unkept to the peasant family guiding DePalma to the Interview shrine of the Sierra.
July 22, 2019
The book itself is a pleasure to be read. DePalma certainly knows how to entertain the reader by giving the essential details and leaving some signs that "things will happen soon" that helps to keep the reading enjoyable.
Regarding the factual story, I guess it's a fairly impartial book on Matthews' life. His whole story is portrayed as him would like to see, and as he lived for it.
What I've learnt the most is how actually the 'freedom' in the US, and here I'm refering to the culture, not State, isn't something quite literal, and its dissidents aren't that well received. How the Times handled the whole situation was, at least, unfair. DePalma gracefully exposes how the relationship between media and government in US works.
For me, a brazilian young student that just read a bit about coups in Latin America from brazilian US-influenced media, it was really enlightening. After all, Brazil wasn't the only target and victim of US "good neighbourhood" politics. Our dictartorship lasted for decades. So I can really empathize how Matthews, Fidel and the cubans felt regarding the American Imperialism and how it operates actually dictating the ways of living in pretty much all over Latin America.
TL;DR: A great piece of information of how American press is reasonable tied with the country government's interest on foreign politics. Also a great story of myths and men.
Regarding the factual story, I guess it's a fairly impartial book on Matthews' life. His whole story is portrayed as him would like to see, and as he lived for it.
What I've learnt the most is how actually the 'freedom' in the US, and here I'm refering to the culture, not State, isn't something quite literal, and its dissidents aren't that well received. How the Times handled the whole situation was, at least, unfair. DePalma gracefully exposes how the relationship between media and government in US works.
For me, a brazilian young student that just read a bit about coups in Latin America from brazilian US-influenced media, it was really enlightening. After all, Brazil wasn't the only target and victim of US "good neighbourhood" politics. Our dictartorship lasted for decades. So I can really empathize how Matthews, Fidel and the cubans felt regarding the American Imperialism and how it operates actually dictating the ways of living in pretty much all over Latin America.
TL;DR: A great piece of information of how American press is reasonable tied with the country government's interest on foreign politics. Also a great story of myths and men.
November 9, 2022
There is so much to learn about Cuba, Fidel, politics, journalism, and just human nature. This writer portrays facts fairly and without bias. Only toward the end are some very helpful observations made.
April 11, 2014
About the Author: The author is a reporter for the New York Times and is married to a Cuban woman.
Overview: The tyrant named Fidel Castro could not have taken control of Cuba and enslaved its population without the help of naive journalists like Herbert L Matthews of The New York Times. Matthews was scrupulously honest about manners of fact; it was his judgment that was flawed. Matthews spent the remainder of his life writing books to justify his role in the Cuban revolution. He never admitted that Fidel Castro had been basically a bad thing for the Cuban people.
Italian Invasion of Ethiopia: In his reporting for The New York Times on Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, Herbert Matthews was sympathetic with Mussolini’s Fascists.
Spanish Civil War: Herbert Matthews reported on the Spanish Civil War for The New York Times. Here he became a friend of Ernest Hemingway. Matthews was sympathetic to the Loyalists, who were fighting against Franco’s Fascists.
Editorial Board: In the 1950s, Matthews left field work and joined the editorial board at The New York Times, focusing on Latin America.
Castro’s Rebels Land at Oriente: On December 2, 1956, rebel forces, lead by Fidel Castro, landed on Las Coloradas Beach in Oriente Province. Planes of the Cuban air force bombed and strafed Castro’s forces on the beach. A United Press reporter talked with a Cuban pilot, who told him that Fidel Castro had been killed. Cuban Dictator Fulgencio Batista and the Cuban army announced that Fidel Castro had been killed.
Batista Imposes Press Censorship: On January 15, 1957, Fulgencio Batista imposed a 45-day period of press censorship regarding rebel activities. On January 18, Matthews wrote an editorial in The New York Times complaining about the press censorship.
Reporter Shopping: Fidel Castro and and the other survivors had made their way up the Sierra Maestra mountains. Fidel Castro sent his men Javier Pazos and René Rodríguez to Havana to seek an American reporter to report that Fidel was still alive. Javier’s father, Felipe Pazos, knew Ruby Phillips, the New York Times correspondent in Cuba. Ruby Phillips knew that she would be deported by Batista if she interviewed Castro herself, so she asked her newspaper to send someone else.
Matthews Interviews Fidel Castro: The New York Times sent Herbert Matthews to interview Fidel Castro. Matthews and his wife Nancie flew to Cuba, pretending to be on holiday, so Batista would not suspect them. In February 1957, in the Sierra Maestra Mountains, Herbert Matthews interviewed rebel leader Fidel Castro for three hours, in Spanish. Matthews even got his picture taken with Fidel Castro, proving that Castro was still alive. The newspaper published three front-page articles based on the interview. Matthews presented Castro as a romantic figure and took him at his word that he would replace Batista’s corrupt dictatorship with a democracy.
Student University Federation: Back in Havana, after meeting with Fidel, Matthews met with one of Fidel’s rivals, José Antonio Echeverría. Echeverría was head of the Student University Federation, which had more followers than Fidel Castro. Echeverría was hoping to assassinate Batista. Later, Echeverría actually made a failed assassination attempt, and was killed.
Revolución and Carlos Franqui: Carlos Franqui was editor-in-chief of the anti-Batista newspaper Revolución, which reprinted Matthews interview. The interview was distributed throughout Havana.
Mario Llerena: Mario Llerena, head of the Committee for Cultural Freedom, flew to New York City, from where he mailed several thousand copies of Matthews’ three New York Times articles to prominent people in Havana. While in New York, Llerena met with Matthews and with CBS reporter Robert Taber.
CBS News: In April 1957, CBS News filmed an interview with Fidel Castro conducted by Robert Taber, and edited by Don Hewitt. The program, "Rebels of the Sierra Maestra: The Story of Cuba’s Jungle Fighters," ran in May 1957.
Homer Bigart Goes to Cuba: In 1958, The New York Times sent veteran reporter Homer Bigart to Cuba, because they felt that Matthews was not objective.
Castro Gains Power: On January 1, 1959, Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba, and Castro’s rebels captured Havana. When Fidel Castro started executing his opponents, Matthews, while not explicitly endorsing the executions, sympathetically presented Castro’s case that the executions were necessary.
Overview: The tyrant named Fidel Castro could not have taken control of Cuba and enslaved its population without the help of naive journalists like Herbert L Matthews of The New York Times. Matthews was scrupulously honest about manners of fact; it was his judgment that was flawed. Matthews spent the remainder of his life writing books to justify his role in the Cuban revolution. He never admitted that Fidel Castro had been basically a bad thing for the Cuban people.
Italian Invasion of Ethiopia: In his reporting for The New York Times on Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, Herbert Matthews was sympathetic with Mussolini’s Fascists.
Spanish Civil War: Herbert Matthews reported on the Spanish Civil War for The New York Times. Here he became a friend of Ernest Hemingway. Matthews was sympathetic to the Loyalists, who were fighting against Franco’s Fascists.
Editorial Board: In the 1950s, Matthews left field work and joined the editorial board at The New York Times, focusing on Latin America.
Castro’s Rebels Land at Oriente: On December 2, 1956, rebel forces, lead by Fidel Castro, landed on Las Coloradas Beach in Oriente Province. Planes of the Cuban air force bombed and strafed Castro’s forces on the beach. A United Press reporter talked with a Cuban pilot, who told him that Fidel Castro had been killed. Cuban Dictator Fulgencio Batista and the Cuban army announced that Fidel Castro had been killed.
Batista Imposes Press Censorship: On January 15, 1957, Fulgencio Batista imposed a 45-day period of press censorship regarding rebel activities. On January 18, Matthews wrote an editorial in The New York Times complaining about the press censorship.
Reporter Shopping: Fidel Castro and and the other survivors had made their way up the Sierra Maestra mountains. Fidel Castro sent his men Javier Pazos and René Rodríguez to Havana to seek an American reporter to report that Fidel was still alive. Javier’s father, Felipe Pazos, knew Ruby Phillips, the New York Times correspondent in Cuba. Ruby Phillips knew that she would be deported by Batista if she interviewed Castro herself, so she asked her newspaper to send someone else.
Matthews Interviews Fidel Castro: The New York Times sent Herbert Matthews to interview Fidel Castro. Matthews and his wife Nancie flew to Cuba, pretending to be on holiday, so Batista would not suspect them. In February 1957, in the Sierra Maestra Mountains, Herbert Matthews interviewed rebel leader Fidel Castro for three hours, in Spanish. Matthews even got his picture taken with Fidel Castro, proving that Castro was still alive. The newspaper published three front-page articles based on the interview. Matthews presented Castro as a romantic figure and took him at his word that he would replace Batista’s corrupt dictatorship with a democracy.
Student University Federation: Back in Havana, after meeting with Fidel, Matthews met with one of Fidel’s rivals, José Antonio Echeverría. Echeverría was head of the Student University Federation, which had more followers than Fidel Castro. Echeverría was hoping to assassinate Batista. Later, Echeverría actually made a failed assassination attempt, and was killed.
Revolución and Carlos Franqui: Carlos Franqui was editor-in-chief of the anti-Batista newspaper Revolución, which reprinted Matthews interview. The interview was distributed throughout Havana.
Mario Llerena: Mario Llerena, head of the Committee for Cultural Freedom, flew to New York City, from where he mailed several thousand copies of Matthews’ three New York Times articles to prominent people in Havana. While in New York, Llerena met with Matthews and with CBS reporter Robert Taber.
CBS News: In April 1957, CBS News filmed an interview with Fidel Castro conducted by Robert Taber, and edited by Don Hewitt. The program, "Rebels of the Sierra Maestra: The Story of Cuba’s Jungle Fighters," ran in May 1957.
Homer Bigart Goes to Cuba: In 1958, The New York Times sent veteran reporter Homer Bigart to Cuba, because they felt that Matthews was not objective.
Castro Gains Power: On January 1, 1959, Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba, and Castro’s rebels captured Havana. When Fidel Castro started executing his opponents, Matthews, while not explicitly endorsing the executions, sympathetically presented Castro’s case that the executions were necessary.
December 18, 2008
Neil asked me to preview this book for the Latin American class he's teaching next semester. I found it very interesting. It was well written and I think it would be a great book for a class to read since it touches not only on the history of Fidel Castro's rise to power, but also talked about America's unique position of influence in Latin America and issues involving journalistic biases. It was a quick read even though it was over 250 pages and only started to drag towards the very end.
January 2, 2009
This book was recommended by my son-in-law, who is a history professor. I found it fascinating, because I was in Junior High when all this happened. Reading this book gave me a better understanding of those events, because I vaguely remember the events when they were happening. Thank you Neil!
June 4, 2010
Overly wordy, not very well-researched book. It does give an interesting perspective on when Castro and the Revolution turned Communist.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews