Replies

Apparently, it is YOU that needs to learn how to read.

As the article link you posted makes clear -- it is a discussion about WALTER DURANTY. The closing paragraph summarizes the purpose of the discussion as follows:

"This document not only brings to light Duranty’s shortcomings in his coverage of the Soviet Union during the 1930s, but also raises the question as to his journalistic integrity, for which in 1932, he was awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize."

MORE IMPORTANT: You obviously do not want to confront the specific articles I listed which eviscerate your argument.

As I stated previously:

The March 1949 speech by former Assistant Secretary of State Adolph A. Berle was given prominent coverage by the Times.

If the New York Times REALLY intended to "coverup" data about Soviet genocide -- is it likely that

(a) they would publish such an article in the first place?
(b) they would feature such an article prominently in the News section of their paper?
(c) they would welcome prominent exposure for comments made by a former senior government official (thus lending the aura of expert testimony to such comments)?

Furthermore, if as YOU claim,.....
"The US recognized the Soviet Genocide only in 1987. That amounts to 55 years of cover up if my cyphering is right"...

Then how does one explain the 1958 report by the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service which I cited previously and repeated below? This is an official government publication whose very TITLE acknowledges Soviet genocide!! How much more obtuse can you possibly be?

The Soviet empire: prison house of nations and races;
a study in genocide, discrimination, and abuse of power.
Library of Congress., Legislative Reference Service.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958

Furthermore, if as YOU claim, there has been a 55-year "coverup" then, by definition, we would have no knowledge about "Soviet genocide" from (a) newspaper articles (b) government hearings and reports and (c) scholarly works.

But as I have shown you through numerous examples, there is a wealth of such data available.

And, finally, I specifically mentioned several books which discuss "Soviet genocide" -- including Ukraine. I asked you if you had read any of them. I also asked you to explain how they are defective, based upon YOUR research.

Significantly, you chose not to answer me --- because if you HAVE read those books or Congressional reports, then you would have to admit that your basic premise is erroneous. And if you HAVE NOT read them, then you would be revealed as an ill-informed ideologue.

What all ideologues and political extremists (left or right) seem to have in common is the practice of taking evidence beyond what is reasonable, fair, and prudent.

In other words, they feel compelled to annihilate opponents, not merely triumph over them. Consequently, they are pre-disposed toward utilizing falsehoods, hoaxes, misrepresentations, half-truths, distortions, and gross exaggerations --- even though they could have made their case WITHOUT resorting to such tainted data.

Spanalot's messages wreak of this problem. For example, he says that the New York Times has never acknowledged Soviet genocide and the Times is complicit in an ongoing 55-year "coverup" of the truth.

As I have conclusively demonstrated in previous messages, by citing specific NYT articles since that 1940's, that accusation obviously is a falsehood. Yes, the Times initially published Walter Duranty's false depictions about Soviet life and the famine---largely because they did not want to antagonize a wartime ally.

But the bare truth is not good enough for ideologues.

See Washington Post article copied below for additional info re: the NYT and Walter Duranty.

Notice in particular the comments quoted in the article by the historian whom performed an independent study of this matter with respect to his perception of the attitude of the NYT itself regarding Duranty. The historian said about the NYT:

"There's no one there who disagrees with me. They acknowledged that his is some of the worst journalism they ever published."

Also significant: Duranty's 1932 Pulitzer is displayed with the notation: "Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."

THE TEXT OF THE POST ARTICLE:

"The executive editor of the New York Times said yesterday that the paper has no objection if the Pulitzer Prize board wants to revoke an award granted to one of its reporters 71 years ago.

Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Walter Duranty deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Bill Keller said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Duranty's work 'pretty dreadful . . . . It was a parroting of propaganda.'

After a review conducted by a history professor, Keller said, the Times essentially told the board in a letter that 'it's up to you to decide whether to take it back. We can't unaward it. Here's our assessment of the guy's work: His work was clearly not prizeworthy.'

Columbia University professor Mark von Hagen said he found that the Moscow correspondent's 1931 work 'was a disgrace to the New York Times. There's no one there who disagrees with me. They acknowledged that his is some of the worst journalism they ever published.'

The Pulitzer board, which is based at Columbia, has been reviewing Duranty's 1932 award for months. Sig Gissler, the board's administrator, said that 'this is a confidential internal review and it's ongoing' but declined to elaborate.

Duranty has been posthumously under fire for years for whitewashing Stalin's murderous excesses. Von Hagen, confirming a report in the New York Sun, said he was 'appalled that the New York Times had a reporter like this who continued to write Stalinist justifications for what was going on there.'

The Times ordered the study soon after Howell Raines resigned as executive editor in June, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal. The paper had previously maintained that there was no point in revisiting ancient history.

Keller said the Times has long since stopped defending Duranty and posted a note next to his picture in the paper's Pulitzer hallway saying that many people had discredited his work.

But the board may face a dilemma. As Keller noted, the prize was awarded for Duranty's work in 1931, which was mostly about Stalin's economic plan and interviews with the Soviet leader. But Duranty is notorious in historical terms for grossly understating the massive famine that killed millions in the Ukraine in 1932-33, during the forced collectivization of Soviet farms.

A 1933 article by Duranty was headlined 'Famine Toll Heavy in Southern Russia.' The lead, however, said: 'The excellent harvest about to be gathered shows that any report of a famine in Russia today is an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.'

Said Keller: 'The stuff he wrote in '31 was awful. The stuff he wrote in '33 was shameful. If the Pulitzer board wants to say you can have your prize revoked for subsequent behavior, that's their right.' But he said other prize-winners might face similar complaints.

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, which has led the protests against Duranty's prize and likened it to the Blair saga, says that more than 15,000 postcards and letters have been sent to the board.

Von Hagen's study said Duranty's 1931 reporting was 'distorted' and displayed a 'lack of balance and uncritical acceptance of the Soviet self-justification for its cruel and wasteful regime.' The report added that 'several foreign correspondents fell under Stalin's spell to a certain extent, as Duranty clearly did, especially if they had been granted the privilege of an interview with the great man.'

The Pulitzer board decided to examine the Duranty case in April, before Blair's fabrications surfaced. The board looked at the matter once before, in 1990, after publication of 'Stalin's Apologist', a book by S.J. Taylor that accused Duranty of covering up for Stalin's brutal regime.

At the time, the board said in a statement, it gave 'extensive consideration to requests for revocation of the prize to Mr. Duranty -- which would have been unprecedented -- and decided unanimously against withdrawing a prize awarded in a different era and under different circumstances.'