Fidelity to Fidel

"There is no thrill in journalism like getting a scoop, and this was the biggest scoop of our times. Professionally speaking, no one can ever take that away from me."

For Veteran New York Timesman Herbert Lionel Matthews, 61, the big thrill came one February night four years ago in Cuba's Oriente province. Led there by intermediaries. Matthews sat for three 'hours with a bearded and gabby young guerrilla leader named Fidel Castro, puffing Havana cigars and discussing, in whispers, Castro's plans to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. The rendezvous with Castro did indeed produce an impressive scoop. Until Matthews' three-part series appeared in the Times, much of the world had been led to believe Castro dead, his rebel movement aborted. In Matthews' glowing, uncritical account. Castro came back to life looking for all the world like a tropical Robin Hood with a sturdy and selfless dedication to "liberty, democracy, social justice."

In his seventh book. The Cuban Story (Braziller; $4.50), Herbert Matthews recalls his 1957 interview as a singular journalistic achievement. It is about all that Newsman Matthews can be proud of in his continued coverage of Cuba. Dazzled from the start by the dashing revolutionary ("I was moved, deeply moved, by that young man"), Matthews fell into the trap that everywhere awaits the unwary reporter: he let emotional bias suspend his judgment. In his eyes. Castro became a hero of whom Matthews can still write today, as he does in The Cuban Story: "I could never bring myself to condemn Fidel Castro outright for what he has done ... I see what is good about [the revolution], how important it is. and I retain my sympathy, and. in many respects, admiration for Fidel Castro."

Adopted Rebel. As early as 1957, plenty of evidence suggested that Matthews1 admiration was misplaced. But the Timesman, a longtime student of Latin American affairs, apparently did not bother to examine it. "Let us note in passing." he writes in The Cuban Story, "that already in 1948, at the age of 21, Fidel Castro was anti-Yankee and agitating against 'Yankee imperialism.' " But in his first story in the Times, Matthews let Castro say, without rebuttal, that "We have no animosity toward the United States and the American people."

Once in power. Castro promptly confirmed the suspicions that had bothered many reporters--but not Herb Matthews. After bathing Cuba in blood--551 drumhead executions in four months--Castro edged steadily leftward, toward the shadow of Moscow. What had been a tyranny under Batista remained one under Castro. But even as other newsmen, among them Ruby Hart Phillips, the Times's Havana correspondent for 24 years, reported these facts, Matthews stuck by his adopted rebel. Castro "insists he wants friendship" with the U.S., wrote Matthews in March 1959, "While welcoming American investments, he says he would prefer American loans." Two months later Castro an nounced plans to expropriate 1,660,000 acres of sugar cane owned by U.S. companies. In July of the same year, Matthews wrote: "This is not a Communist revolution in any sense of the word."

He Was Pushed. With little alteration. Matthews sang Fidelity for four years. His misplaced loyalty continued to color the Times's editorials on Cuba (which, curiously, still remain a Matthews responsibility). Those who saw Castro's Cuba in a harsher light he branded as "distorted, unfair, ill-informed and intensely emotional"--accusations more accurately leveled at Matthews (who once admitted that "I would never dream of hiding my own bias or denying it").

Intended as a ringing defense of his own reporting on Cuba, his book only demonstrates how wrong Matthews was then, and how wrong he is now. The reporter who adopted a rebel has now become Castro's apologist: "Let me repeat that I am not making a moral judgment in saying that given the problems he faced, internally and externally, given the character of the Cuban people, and given his determination to make a radical, social revolution. Fidel came up with a logical answer." Besides, says Matthews. Castro did not necessarily turn left; he may have been pushed: "Historians will have to ask themselves how much the American attitude and policies helped to force Fidel Castro in this direction.'' (Even Times book reviewer, Charles Poore, appeared upset by this Matthews deduction. Wrote Poore last week in his review of Colleague Matthews' book: "The reasoning here, possibly, is that if we had identified them as cowards or as abominable snowmen, we'd have martyrized them into becoming cowards or abominable snowmen.")

Historians will also have to weigh the damage that Timesman Matthews did by glorifying Castro, the damage he did with his Times editorials, which were influential in delaying U.S. recognition of the true dimensions of the Cuban problem. But with self-assurance. Herb Matthews has already decided what the historians will say: "The only monument I want to leave on earth is for some student years from now to consult the files of The New York Times for information about the Cuban Revolution, and find my byline, and know that he can trust it.''

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.