That was the question I was hoping to answer when I started to read
"All Governments Lie! The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone" and the book does a good job of answering that question. Unfortunately, once I started reading it, it dawned on me that reading the autobiography of a writer does not really make a lot of sense unless you are familiar with the
body of their work. I had one of his books, but it was "The Trial of Socrates" which he wrote later in life. Even if you are familiar with a journalist's work, most of what the writer has achieved in their lifetime is right there in their columns. You don't need to read a biography just to find it. In fact, for most journalists - "Izzy" included - they don't want the focus to be on them. They want it to be on those crooks they are writing about, instead. At the same time, Stone was known for his strong opinions and personal touch, which attracted such a loyal following for his independent weekly.
Before diving in to "All Governments Lie!" it would probably be worth getting your feet wet with
"The Best of I.F. Stone" which Kevin Drum
describes as "just plain fun to read". The first thing that suprised me about I.F. Stone is that he was born in 1907. His family was Jewish and both of his parents had escaped the pogroms and massacres during the rule of Czar Nicholas in Russia by immigating to Philadelphia. His first assignment at a copy desk was back in 1927, but by his thirties he had moved up to become a senior writer for the New York Post then an associate editor for The Nation. His first book, out of fourteen that he would eventually write, was in 1937. As hard as it might be to fathom in our new media age, he was published in major newspapers of publications for over sixty years, from the 20s through the 80s.
While his career started off as an advocate for the Communist party and he initially heaped praised on Stalin, it is important to remember that back in the 20s and 30s there was a mainstream Communist party here in America. The Great Depression had renewed the socialist movement for change. It was not until Stalin signed a pact with Hitler that Stone and his fellow socialists started to realize the flaws of the Communist party.
As Myra MacPherson points out however, by the 1950s Stone was just as critical of the USSR as the USA. He had been burnt and it was a lesson he remembered as he maintained his independence from loyalty to any party or cause, while keeping true to his own leftist ideals. At one point, "All Governments Lie!" recounts a speech from June 1950:
In a New York hotel, stone jokingly told a sweltering crowd of leftists to "prepare your tomatoes." He plunged. "I'm sorry but I must say the North Koreans attacked the South Koreans" with Stalin's blessing. Many sat in stony silence as the journalist assailed both the United States and the USSR. "There is hippocrisy on both sides.... Both... want the markets of the world. God help any country occupied by the Russians or the Americans.... They should leave things to the Asiatics and get the hell out of there." To angry questioners, he kept repeating, "This is only my opinion."
At the same time, Stalin was not his enemy. No, Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were destined to fill that role. Amazingly, the FBI spent thousands of hours trailing Stone as he went to buy cigarettes, going through his trash and monitoring his phone calls. All of which intensified when he rightly singled both men out for criticism. Eventually, Stone was blacklisted by all the major newspapers and started his own publication called "I.F. Stone Weekly" in response. While the book contains many thoughtfully selected quotes from Stone's writing, this one Kevin Drum found from another article of his seems like it highlights the ability Stone had to cut through BS:
Here's an excerpt from a 1966 essay written after a visit to Saigon. Stone is talking about the attitude he found among the cold warriors responsible for prosecuting the Vietnam War:
They place a very high value on the purity of their intentions and a very low estimate on the motivations of the Vietnamese.
....Our capacity for overlooking the obvious is enormous. Even one of the best and most independent reporters here was shocked by the anti-Americanism of recent demonstrations in Saigon and in Hué and Danang. He shares the naive view that we are there to help the Vietnamese and regards the demonstrations as sheer ingratitude. The simple fact that occupying armies, whether allied or enemy, always become unpopular hardly ever figures in official calculation.
Compare this to the attitude expressed by President Bush in a recent private meeting at the Pentagon:
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. "I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States," said another person who attended.
The more things stay the same, the more they stay the same.
Here is a another quote, this one from "All Governments Lie!":
Since the press is largely Republican and this is a Republican administration, there is little market for "exposing" the government... the average Washington correspondent is content to write what he is spoon-fed by the government's press officers."
Stone made that observation over fifty years ago, back in 1953. Like the highlights of Stone's career, the bulk of "All Governments Lie!" focuses on the 1950s and 60s. Clearly, this was a time when America was at a turning point. Would we descend into the facist ramblings of the House Unamerican Activities Committee or rise to the heights of freedom expression to which our founding fathers aspired? Clearly, the answer is probably somewhere in between, but not for the lack of effort from the likes of I. F. Stone. Looking back at the work of those who have gone before us can offer us valuable lessions. It was interesting to note that Stone became a rich man simply from the subscription costs to his independent weekly, which topped of in the tens of thousands each paying $5 a year, which at the time was a lot. As such, he was beholden to no one, other than his audience. This is the what bloggers are trying to do today, and those looking for a role model as they start independent publishing could do a lot worse than the legendary I. F. Stone or his biography "All Governments Lie!"