By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
Telford:
Feel free to document the things that Che did that the BBC prefers you not to know about -- but please make sure you produce evidence, such as a reference to a book or an article, or a link to a reputable source (don't rely on a memory of something you think you might have read ten years ago).
matthew:
possibly the most disturbing part of this story is that we are asked to "send in our memories", as if he was some kind of much-loved comic actor, rather than murderous guerilla terrorist.
Bryan:
Earlier this year there was a communist-adoring, starry-eyed hack waxing eloquent on the World Service, with voice brimful with emotion, about the defeat of the invading American forces at the Bay of Pigs:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=42685#349760
Be interesting to know just how many BBC hacks are communists or communist-sympathisers. Easy to be one when you can leech off the hard-earned capital of others.
And just like countless others who claim to embody noble, revolutionary ideals, Guevara proved more callous and brutal than those he opposed.
matthew:
it honestly is quite difficult to understand the context that the BBC work in.
According to The Times article, the popularity of Che came because
"French intellectuals who flocked to Havana in the 1960s fell under the charm of the only “comandante” who could speak their language.
They turned a blind eye to anything that did not fit in with their idealised image of Guevara."
(including murder, execution without trial)
I don't really understand why the BBC does the same.
matthew:
Bryan: high-minded idealism only applies to Americans at Guantanamo Bay, never to glorious socialist heroes doing much worse.
matthew:
The following search gives a list of BBC articles about him:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?n...e+guevara&
meta=
They are, without exception, universally positive without criticsm - not even the 'on this day' obituary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/...000/
3930193.stm
Just page after page of fawning praise
Bryan:
Makes one wonder exactly what proportion of the UK TV tax-paying public has the same adoration of Guevara: 0,005%? 0,0005%? (I'm being generous here.)
And it makes one really angry to realise just how stealthily and cunningly the BBC has hijacked billions in extorted funds to promote its own narrow agenda and engage in mutual back-slapping exercises to eulogise murderous thugs.
Barry Wood:
This is reminiscent of a current scandal in America where The History Channel broadcast an uncritical and glowing account of Guevara's career.
A superb debunking of this, was carried out by David Horowitz's Frontpage.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...64-
CE1FC8A7B066
Frontpage also carried out an earlier very full account of the career of Che Guevara.
"Under Che, Havana's La Cabana fortress was converted into Cuba's Lubianka. He was a true Chekist: "Always interrogate your prisoners at night," Che commanded his prosecutorial goons, "a man is easier to cow at night, his mental resistance is always lower."
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles...43305CB15405%
7D
The June 13, 2007 Frontpage interview with Cuban dissident and Guevara biographer Humberto Fontova is also illuminating.
Extract:
FP: So what accounts for Che Guevara’s international heraldry? What exactly did he accomplish
Fontova: He accomplished exactly nothing. As I document in the book, Ernesto Guevara failed spectacularly at everything he attempted in his life--except at the mass-murder of defenseless men and boys. But he had the great fortune of linking up with the 20th century's top publicist: Fidel Castro, who hatched and propagated (with the aid of his ever-faithful media and academic accomplices) the Che legend, of which nothing is true.
This KGB-trained and worshiping hangman named Che now serves as the idol of "do your own thing" radicals and the slogan that adorns Che posters under T-shirts is "Resist Oppression." The mind boggles. It really required a sense of humor to write this book--otherwise I'd have gone nuts
...Sadly, Che's cachet as the worldwide symbol of Anti-Americanism let's him get away-- not just with murder--but with Mass-murder. That Anti-American cachet (the gallant David's against the American Goliath) seems to excuse all the horrors of the Cuban revolution for much of the worldwide intelligentsia."
Fontova interview
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Art...E-035B6A1F541D}
dave t:
Wonder if we'll get any comments from our BBC friends? Come on JR!
Where ARE you my little soldier for the revolution...? 8-)
Anon:
It's bad enough having to read that dreary apologist hack without people inviting him in.
Haversack:
Did George Bush ever do this?
"I fired a .32calibre bullet into the right hemisphere of his brain which came out through his left temple," was Guevara's clinical description of the killing. "He moaned for a few moments, then died."
(from The Times article).
Andrew:
For what it's worth, Wikipedia has:
He was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his five-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959),[28] he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities" (a unit of the secret police known by its Spanish acronym BRAC). José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, said that these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara.[29][30] It is estimated that between 156 and 550 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time.
Allan D:
I've sent off a suitably appropriate although, I suspect, ineffective response to the request for "memories" to the (Don't)Have Your Say column. The next request will be presumably for "Uday Hussein - Send Us Your Memories"!
Stephanie clague:
So Guevara was nothing more than a cruel and cowardly psycopath? How about his BBC fans come and tell us the truth? How many innocent civillians did Che kill? Why does the BBC treat him like a hero?
I will always remember the "great rail journeys of the world" documentary on Cuba, the reporter was very positive about all aspects of Cuba and how brave they are to stand upto the USA but near the end he interviewed an old man who tried to tell him the truth about the regime but the reporter cut him off and sneered at his ansewer! Here was an old man trying as best he could to tell an outsider of who he thought was to blame for the terrible conditions in Cuba but this didnt fit with the BBC mans starry eyed vision of the workers paradise!
You have to see the programme to realise just how divorced from reality the BBC reporters have become!
Grimly Squeamish:
Stephanie the technique you outline applies to any Beeb project where the facts don't fit the standard leftie theory.
Goodness knows how many interviewees have ended up being edited into oblivion because they dared speak the truth.
Murdering terrorists like Guevara have hero status at the Beeb because no one questions the orthodoxy: it is simply the way things are done and the opinions that are held there.
Many of those sad middle aged suits now in command at the British Bureau of Communism were once members of student communist societies where they'd wear their Guevara t-shirts - Wolfie Smith style - with pride, plot the downfall of capitalism and curse their middle class parents - you know - the ones who paid for them to go to decent schools and then on to Oxford and Cambridge.
Now these idiots are running the BBC.
Sam Duncan:
Bryan, you're probably right about the number of people who hold the photogenic mass murderer as a hero, but I doubt if there are many more who know the truth. The rest - or that proportion of the rest who've even heard of him, and don't think he was a Big Brother contestant - get most of their information about the world from the BBC.
matthew:
here's the BBC History page on him:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/
his...evara_che.shtml
No criticism of him, but they don't miss the opportunity to blame the failure of the Cuban economy on the American sanctions (no explanation as to why those sanctions were put in place). Neither do they miss the opportunity to blame the US for Guevara's execution.
For further information, one is encouraged to read
http://www.historyofcuba.com/his...tory/
chebio.htm
which is written by a Cuban who refers to 'the glorious revolution'.
Fair and balanced? Not the BBC
matthew:
And here we are:
In Pictures: Images of Che
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pi...res/
7029522.stm
If you search the BBC site for Che Guevara, its 'Best Links' are to the BBC History page above, the On This Day, and this:
H2G2 - Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
Apparently H2G2 is the BBC Guide to Life, The Universe and Everything.
This particular entry forms one of the small number in the Peer Reviewed 'Edited Guide'. Entries in the 'Edited Guide' can only be updated via the 'Curators'.
So safe to say, something in this section does form the party line.
So what does the article say?
"the citizens were being exploited by the imperialist ambitions of the US which appeared to be keen to prop up the dictators for its own ends."
"Che's 'martyrdom' established him firmly as a 20th Century icon."
"Be like Che! If we want to say how we would like our children to be educated, we should say without hesitation: We want them to be educated in the spirit of Che!"
The author describes his role model as 'Che Guevara'.
Hardly an appropriate 'Best Link'
Bryan:
Sam Duncan | 06.10.07 - 9:03 pm,
I'm sure you are right. I'm sure the vast majority of people don't know much more about him than the fact that he's the one on the T-shirts.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
The article you complain of is not a history or biography of Guevara, but an article about the history of his image, more specifically a photographic image.
It's fine.
[The Moderator: Nick, this is utter bullshit. See Matthew's response below]
matthew:
Nick, it's all very well to say it's about an image, but that's clearly NOT the case, there is a 'key facts' box about Guevara's life, and PLENTY of biographical information about Guevara in the story, none of it doing anything other than suggest he is an untarnished hero.
I suggest you contrast the BBC article with the article at Yahoo (linked above), which is actually by Reuters. And it doesn't agree with the BBC, saying 'Only last month, a new biography, "The Hidden Face of Che," depicted Guevara as a cold-hearted killer who oversaw executions and presided over a "purifying commission"', and that 'reverence is perhaps on the wane.'
Clearly the study of the iconography of Che Guevara is of interest, but allowing quotes from Guevara's most adoring fans to form over half of the article is hardly fair and balanced public service journalism.
And Biased BBC readers aren't the only ones that see something wrong in this:
http://reason.com/blog/show/122858.html
They link to a Slate article by Paul Berman
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/
After reading it, it's *impossible* to imagine how ANYONE could write an article about 'Che the icon' without uttering a bad word about 'Che the man'.
And there is a bigger issue of why the BBC has never printed a single uncomplimentary word about Che Guevara. It's quite an accomplishment, don't you think?
It's not JUST this article.
matthew:
More thoughts (not mine, though I do agree with them) on the BBC's persistent glorification of Commnunist Cuba
http://faustasblog.com/2007/10/u...years-
beeb.html
Bryan:
matthew | 07.10.07 - 12:47 am,
Good response. We wait for the day when the BBC stops whitewashing over the brutality of its heroes. Until such time as it desists from this obscene practice, it will be rightly dismissed by fair-minded people as a propaganda outfit.
Pete:
Why doesn't the BBC just go to Cuba and ask ordinary Cuban people for their memories of Che? I'm sure they'd get nothing but the gushing praise they want as no other opinions on the topic are permitted. To save money they could do it when they go there to cover the next Cuban elections. No need to take the swingometer.
Haversack:
There was another Che article on Friday from AP which appeared on Yahoo, which was also more balanced.
And that response from Nick Reynolds -- what a crock of s**t. He's lost any credibility he ever had in my eyes.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Some people like Guevara, some people hate him. The BBC's tone in these articles is broadly neutral, and indeed in this BBC story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
7027619.stm
you will read the following:
"Hero. Rebel. Revolutionary. These are words one often hears in association with Ernesto Che Guevara.
But they are not words you will often hear in Miami where many people see Che Guevara as a brutal guerrilla who brought Cuba nothing but misery with his communist ideals."
Spencer:
Che was a mass murderer. That's not in dispute. Yet the article that Biased BBC has blogged about is not remotely neutral in tone. Nor are the other Che articles on BBC that I've seen. Nick Reynolds happens to find one article that is neutral, but that's actually about the man who killed him, and not even the BBC can avoid repeating criticisms of Che in that case.
Matthew:
Ah yes, I was actually just about to come here and express surprise that that article has been published, but I see Nick has beaten me to it.
Rather convenient that it has been published so soon after the criticism of the BBC for its attitudes to Guevara on this site.
That article *is* better, but nonethless rather conveys the impression of 'Everyone loves Che except for a few fanatics in Miami'.
It doesn't, to me, seem the balance of articles such as this one, which reads
'Cuba honours Castro's fallen comrade
Born in Argentina, South America's most famous revolutionary
Cubans have paid tribute to the legendary guerrilla leader Che Guevara on what would have been his 75th birthday.
He played a key role in the revolution which brought Fidel Castro to power in Cuba in 1959 and went on to become a revolutionary icon for communism.
Che Guevara's image, with beard and beret, was recognised all over the world.
Tens of thousands of Cubans marched and took part in ceremonies to mark the anniversary of his birth.
The state-run media had special programming on Che Guevara throughout the day, and a cultural festival was held in his memory.
President Castro recently described his old comrade as "an extraordinary human being of great intelligence and culture". '
Anyway, if this is the start of a more balanced attitude by the BBC, then it is to be welcomed.
I would question Nick, whether you feel that THIS is an appropriate 'best link' on Che Guevara (which has been CHOSEN by BBC editorial staff to appear at the top of the results if you search for 'Che Guevara' on the BBC site). What kind of a page is that to be showing to children who turn to the BBC for what they might think to be the 'truth' for finding out about Guevara for their homework?
Perhaps you could have the 'Best Link' removed, because it is pure propaganda by Guevara's self-stated fan.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Well Spencer if you look at Wikipedia it looks as though this is in dispute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal...alk:
Che_Guevara
Like I say, some people love Guevara, some hate him. Can you explain precisely what it is about the BBC article (which is about Guevara's image, remember, not what he did) is not neutral?
Matthew:
Nick the problem is that these articles, such as the one I quote above, do not give any indication that Guevara is anything other than cuddly folk hero. You would not have articles about support for Pinochet (as an example) that did not mention the unsavoury aspects of his regime.
I chose the first five distinct articles on Pinochet on a google search of BBC News, and checked for criticism of Pinochet. All five articles contain it (I just show a brief excerpt of criticism here):
1. 'Gen Pinochet took power in a 1973 coup, and more than 3,000 people were killed or "disappeared" in his 17-year rule.
He was accused of dozens of human rights abuses as well as fraud but poor health meant he never faced trial. '
2. 'Gen Pinochet died in December 2006 before he could stand trial on charges of corruption and human rights abuses.
More than 3,000 people were killed or "disappeared" during his military rule. '
3.'The general died in December 2006 before he could stand trial on charges of corruption and human rights abuses.
More than 3,000 people were killed or "disappeared" during his military rule. '
4. 'it was Gen Pinochet who came to represent the military regime.
It was he who ordered many of the purges that saw more than 3,000 supporters of the Allende regime killed, thousands more tortured, and many thousands more again forced into exile.
He closed down the Chilean Parliament, banned all political and trade union activity, and in 1974 appointed himself president. '
5.'Gen Pinochet was also placed under house arrest in October over allegations of kidnap and torture of political prisoners at the infamous Villa Grimaldi detention centre, but he was subsequently freed on bail.
Other human rights cases include the disappearance of dissidents in 1975 in what was known as Operation Colombo. Gen Pinochet was charged in connection with the kidnapping of at least three dissidents by the security services. '
Spencer:
>Well Spencer if you look at Wikipedia it looks as though this is in dispute:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal...alk: Che_Guevara
Did you actually read it? There's no dispute there about whether Che killed a lot of people in the course of his attempts to replace existing governments with him and his comrades. And I didn't see any dispute about this claim in the Wiki article itself:
"It is estimated that between 156 and 550 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time".
>Can you explain precisely what it is about the BBC article (which is about Guevara's image, remember, not what he did) is not neutral?
Nick, this is not the first time I've had to rub my eyes with astonishment after reading what you've written. Did you read what Matthew wrote? Can you point to any content in the article which *doesn't* portray Che in a positive light? (And if it's "just about the icon", why are there so many positive comments about Che in it?)
Matthew:
Agreed spencer, Hitler is an icon too (apologies for invoking him), Nazi iconography is very powerful, it's hardly appropriate to write about him in a positive light though is it?
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
There are two "positive comments" in the article about Che's image, both from people directly involved in the the poster image and the photograph. Both are in inverted commas, i.e. direct quotes.
Reporting what someone says does not mean you approve of what they say. Just as in the other article, reporting negative views of Geuvara does not mean the BBC agrees with them.
Spencer:
But somehow the BBC mostly provides positive "quotes" for left-wing killers, but mostly negative quotes for "right-wing" killers they disapprove of. Thus, over time Che ends up with a rosy glow, while someone like Pinochet ends up smelling like s**t.
(The latter is usually appropriate, but the BBC has double-standards -- notice how relaxed they are about a left-winger killing people for the cause, yet BBC types burst a blood vessel if the Americans are seem to have even mistreated a prisoner.)
Matthew:
You really don't do yourself any favours, do you Merton? 'It's pointless trying to reason with these people', you say.
Perhaps if you actually READ anything on this site, rather than coming here with your blinkered view, and hands over your ears, you would see firstly that Nick posted that link, and secondly that two people have already commented on it, not so far above. That article, today, was published AFTER this criticism of the BBC for never having published anything negative about Che Guevara.
What are you actually contributing here by not reading and posting your prejudices? It just appears to be 'yah, boo, you suck'.
Nick, I think your response is rather damning actually, "Reporting what someone says does not mean you approve of what they say" is not a valid response. The BBC could refuse to report anything from the Conservative Party and only stuff from Labour, and say that it is "only reporting what people say". Only reporting people's views from one side is NOT balanced.
I do not have a problem with today's article, although I will note that it is a first, in even expressing through the prism of an obsessed-sounding American, negative thoughts, but it ALSO indicates that the man is regarded as a hero by many, while the corresponding articles about Che being a hero DO NOT indicate that some people regard him as a killer.
[The Moderator: I deleted Merton's trollish comment because he was passing off Biased BBC as his home page.]
Peter:
Just to share, I last night watched the History Channel's offering, something like 'Che, the true story.'
It did not gloss over his political ineptitude, fall-outs with Fidel, annoying the Russians, etc, or indeed that he acheived sod all bar a nifty line in T-shirts.
However, unless I missed the beginning when it was covered, there was also no mention of his less than noble activities as outlined here.
In fact, the description of his death (not nice, and not the finest hour a CIA-employee ever had) had martyr-ful written all over it.
But thanks to this thread, I had much more context to view it with. What if left out can have a HUGE impact.
And no, just because The History Channel ran a tape they were given does it mean the BBC can follow suit. Cut the fat and the tat, and use the money where it matters.
The History Channel will not be able to list me in their ratings again, and hence I will not be helping pay for them, even with ads.
Matthew:
there are a number of people angry at The History Channel's documentary, google for it....
Peter:
a number of people angry at The History Channel's documentary, google for it....
Matthew | 08.10.07 - 4:35 pm | #
I did, ta, but didn't see too much on the channel.
But did get to this, which has to be one of the more entertaining book titles I have ever seen on a serious topic: Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.
And they would be...?
Matthew:
Google blog search for you with some links
Michael Calwell:
Che Guevara
Dear God, what have we done to pay for this hagiography? If you ever doubted the BBC's Marxist credentials, here they are resplendent in glory. Che the hero, Che NOT the murderer, Che NOT the terrorist. Lovely Cuba, where nobody risks life and limb to get to the evil empire on matchstick rafts.
champagne bottles::
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
7033880.stm
Other commemorations are being held in Bolivia and Venezuela, countries where the Argentine-born hero was active.
So, seeing as, for example, Margaret Thatcher is considered a heroine by some, presumably we'll see her described in such terms in future BBC news reports.
Jim T.:
I'm sure others must have heard the Che-fest on the 5 pm prog this evening, what a nice cuddly man he was, a real example to all those innocent Cuban children. The reporter even bought a Che key ring. Ye gods! No hint of criticism of what he did. Must be time for the rehabilitation of Pol Pot who did so much for the agriculture of his country.
Robert J White:
This has got to be a joke..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/ 7033880.stm
"His critics describe Che as a brutal man who ordered the execution of dozens of his opponents and helped move Cuba further towards communism in the early years of the revolution"
His CRITICS? his CRITICS?!?!
bodo:
RJ White: You missed the bit about Che; "Other commemorations are being held in Bolivia and Venezuela, countries where the Argentine-born hero was active.".
Hero? Really? Well I suppose Hitler is 'an Austrian born hero' to some, but I doubt the BBC would publish their belief as fact.
matthew:
you messed up the link champagne bottles.
I wonder if someone has a word, because it says
"His critics describe Che as a brutal man who ordered the execution of dozens of his opponents and helped move Cuba further towards communism in the early years of the revolution. "
Message hasn't got through to Michael Voss here though, just another glorifying article. He's been criticised for this only last week
Andrew Paterson:
[The Moderator: Andrew, your original comment came across as a total non sequitur. If you think you can do a better job this time of explaining why you think it's a good argument, try commenting again.]
Andrew Paterson:
Well to be frank I was coming from the position of a person who was aware enough of the story of the capture of Guevara before the BBC posted a story to know a little titbit that I thought might be interesting. Especially given how the general thrust of the arguments against the article(s) in question concerned how they romanticised the man. After all what is the saliant fact more open to romanticism, the fact that Felix Rodriguez still possesses Guevara's pipe (my how humble) or his extremely expensive gold watch? The rolex doesn't quite fit in with the 'normal' narrative now does it. I found it even further note of that Rodriguez may well be sporting the watch in the BBC article in question.
Quite an odd editorial decision to excise my comment from what is normally quite an open blog I must say.
[The Moderator: Andrew, you didn't just present this as a tidbit, you said it discredited the whole article, which was a ridiculously strong conclusion to draw from a trivial point. That's why it was deleted. (Besides, who gives a damn about his watch when the guy killed so many people?)]
Bryan:
Reporting what someone says does not mean you approve of what they say. Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 08.10.07 - 3:24 pm
Can't fault your logic there Mr. Reynolds. The problem for the BBC, though, is that more and more people are becoming aware of the fact that the BBC hammers away at us continually with quotes from people on the BBC's side of the ideological divide while using the absolute minimum possible of quotes from those on the other side of the divide.
An example that has been noted often on this blog is that the BBC almost always lifts a quote it agrees with from a comment on a HYS debate to display on the main HYS page even if (or perhaps especially if) 95% or more of the comments are against the BBC's line.
In other words, it pretends to pluck a representative sample out of the debate when the sample is anything but.
It's damn sneaky and dishonest. And, of course, it's propaganda and not journalism.
So we would like to know from you, Mr. Reynolds, when the BBC is finally going to stop trying to force people to think in its own narrow fashion and start to fulfil its duty as a public broadcaster.
We would also like to know when the BBC is finally going to identify and get rid of the propagandists in its midst. The problem there, I suppose, is it would have to fire most of its staff to achieve that.
Andrew:
Verity made a post the other day without a link - I've tracked down what she was referring to:
Che at the Oscars:
A Cuban gentleman named Pierre San Martin was also among those jailed by the gallant Che. A few years ago he recalled the horrors in a El Nuevo Herald article. "32 of us were crammed into a cell" he recalls. "16 of us would stand while the other sixteen tried to sleep on the cold filthy floor. We took shifts that way. Actually, we considered ourselves lucky. After all, we were alive. Dozens were led from the cells to the firing squad daily. The volleys kept us awake. We felt that any one of those minutes would be our last."
"One morning the horrible sound of that rusty steel door swinging open startled us awake and Che's guards shoved a new prisoner into our cell. His face was bruised and smeared with blood. We could only gape. He was a boy, couldn't have been much older than 12, maybe 14.
"What did you do?" We asked horrified. "I tried to defend my papa," gasped the bloodied boy. "I tried to keep these Communist sons of b**tches from murdering him! But they sent him to the firing squad."
Soon Che's goons came back, the rusty steel door opened and they yanked the valiant boy out of the cell. "We all rushed to the cell's window that faced the execution pit, " recalls Mr San Martin. "We simply couldn't believe they'd murder him!"
"Then we spotted him, strutting around the blood-drenched execution yard with his hands on his waist and barking orders – the gallant Che Guevara." Here Che was finally in his element. In battle he was a sad joke, a bumbler of epic proportions (for details see Fidel; Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant). But up against disarmed and bloodied boys he was a snarling tiger.
"Kneel Down!" Che barked at the boy.
"ASSASSINS!" We screamed for our window. "MURDERERS!! HOW CAN YOU MURDER A LITTLE BOY!"
" I said: KNEEL DOWN!" Che barked again.
The boy stared Che resolutely in the face. "If you're going to kill me," he yelled. "you'll have to do it while I'm standing! MEN die standing!"
" COWARDS! – MURDERERS!..Sons of B**TCHES!" The men yelled desperately from their cells. "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" HOW CAN...?! "And then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. It didn't seem possible. But Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boys neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.
"We erupted. We were enraged, hysterical, banging on the bars. "MURDERERS! – ASSASSINS!" His murder finished, Che finally looked up at us, pointed his pistol, and BLAM!-BLAM-BLAM! emptied his clip in our direction. Several of us were wounded by his shots."
To a man (and boy) Che's murder victims went down in a blaze of defiance and glory. So let's recall Che's own plea when the wheels of justice finally turned and he was cornered in Bolivia. "Don't Shoot!" he whimpered. "I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
See also:
Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him - BBC take note!
Andrew:
Some more good Cuba/Che stuff from http://trenblindado.com/
How Che murdered:
http://trenblindado.com/Sanmartin.html
Che and the armoured train:
http://trenblindado.com/Story.html
WoAD:
Harrowing post from Andrew their. Note Bene Beeboids.
Sooo. Nick Reynolds.
I'm sorry I described you as a "terrorist sympathiser" in an earlier thread. I seem to recall that you were "slightly offended" by this. How insulting of me to describe you as a mere, lowly, sympathiser. Please accept my apologies 
"Matthew:
Agreed spencer, Hitler is an icon too (apologies for invoking him), Nazi iconography is very powerful, it's hardly appropriate to write about him in a positive light though is it?"
Many people appreciate the Nazis "from an art history perspective".
"His critics describe Che as a brutal man who ordered the execution of dozens of his opponents and helped move Cuba further towards communism in the early years of the revolution"
Deconstruct that. "Helped"? Why did they use that word? Because someone at the BBC still thinks there is something helpful and positive about Communism.
The "and helped" part of the above should be replaced with the more neutral "too".
Really read that sentence closely "move Cuba further towards communism" Why the completely superfluous use of "further"?
Because the BBC News 24 is written by hacks who don't even read what they write.
Andrew Paterson:
Well I can only apoligise if it came across that I believed it discredited the whole article, I'm more than aware of Guevara's crimes. Surely it's the small details of the BBC's articles on Guevara which add up to the overall romanticism of their reporting?
Anyway I'm struggling to believe I'm actually debating this, as a long-time reader of the blog I'd suggest a less 'hands-on' editing policy, you've wasted both our time.
[The Moderator: Andrew, you said *specifically* that it discredited the whole article (and that's why it was deleted). It didn't just happen to "come across that way". And you were the one who chose to make a big deal of the comment being deleted. We've made it very clear that not every comment makes the cut.]
Anonymous:
Can you believe this crap over a murderer and human rights violator?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pi...res/
7034237.stm
Peter:
This from the Indy:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
wo...icle3041070.ece
At least at the end I had a sense that all was not as clearcut as my Wolfie Smith youth might have imagined.
Were that some other media capable of sharing information to allow me to arrive at a more rounded view of the man and his efforts.
I look forward to the Newsround version.
Andrew Paterson:
Well I'll have to be more careful, tbh I can't actually remember how I phrased the post. My general point still stands however, I have no doubt that Felix Rodriguez talked about the watch to the BBC interviewer but they failed to mention it, he tells all and sundry the anecdote and is known to shot if off proudly. Obviously he can appreciate the irony of a socialist hero sporting an expensive gold watch (property is theft) even if BBBC can't.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I'm not quite sure what WoAD is implying in his post about me. Perhaps he is saying that I am in fact a "terrorist" rather than a sympathiser. I've been called worse, but other people might think that such comments are legally unsafe.
I'm not sure the comparisons with Hitler are right. Though there are still a thankfully small number of people around who think Hitler was right they are regarded as beyond the pale by pretty much anyone of any political persuasion. History has made its' judgement.
Guevara is a much more controversial figure who divides opinion strongly. Villain to some, hero to others. History has not yet made its judgement. The BBC's job is to reflect all sides. These are subtle points of editorial judgement, not evidence of bias.
Regarding the H2G2 article mentioned at the top of the thread we've had a little internal debate inside the BBC about it being a "best link". I think the actual content in it was ok in the context of H2G2. But I wasn't sure it was a "best link", particularly as the Wikipedia article (which the BBC is also linking to)is arguably a better bit of user generated content.
We will try to get the "best link" tag removed when the H2G2 entry shows up in search.
Matthew:
Nick, the issue is that controversial figures should be described as controversial, not simply as heroes (as for instance Pinochet is).
There are signs the BBC editorial line may start to reflect this, and this is to be welcomed.
Matthew:
Articles like this one, one of several published today, do you no favours.
It conveys the impression that Guevara is a man of total purity of vision (despite the Rolex), and that the Latin American world is at one in idolising him.
If I was an impressionable young person of left-wing leanings, I would read that article, and think 'Wow, what a great guy fighting for the poor'.
I read the entire article and missed "Some in Latin America see Che as a failed revolutionary, while others say he was a misguided killer. " on the first reading, so token is the attempt at conveying that there might be anyone who dislikes him (and no attempt made to interview any of them)).
Andrew:
WoAD: "I'm sorry I described you as a "terrorist sympathiser" in an earlier thread. I seem to recall that you were "slightly offended" by this. How insulting of me to describe you as a mere, lowly, sympathiser. Please accept my apologies"
WoAD, kindly apologise for the above - it's not necessary or appropriate to personally disparage fellow commenters (BBC or otherwise) in this way.
If you wish to indulge in such vitriol perhaps it'd be better to do it on a blog of your own rather than here.
Thank you.
Haversack:
"History has made its' judgement."
Earth to Nick Reynolds... history has made its judgement on Communism. Did you miss the meeting? (Is the jury still out on Chairman Mao in your mind?)
Andrew:
Nick, Haversack, how can history be expected to make an honest judgement if those who produce the narrative from which the judgement is formed don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
WoAD:
[The Moderator: WoAD, any more of that and you'll won't be welcome here any more.]
Haversack:
Andrew, I'm happy if any report on Che includes the information that some people still think he's wonderful, as long as it's mentioned that this group mainly consists of the current totalitarian regime in Cuba, hard left revolutionaries who want to replace democracy with a one-party state, and shallow Western college students who know little about what he actually did.
The point, however, was that the jury is no longer out on Communism, and violent Communist revolutions. If the BBC doesn't acknowledge that then that tells us a lot about their world-view.
Robert J White:
"history has made its judgement"
Sorry, but you have lost me. Is that in the BBC charter? So I am forced to pay for this if "history has made its judgement". Thats just rubbish. Not quite impartial is it. Impartial, not "history has made its judgement ".
Andrew:
WoAd, I didn't see your comment that Mr. Moderator deleted. You will apologise as requested and will behave reasonably henceforth if you wish to continue participating here.
Bryan:
While I'm appalled at the BBC's terror-friendly stance and the mealy-mouthed justifications it spews out in defence of that stance, to basically accuse Nick Reynolds himself of being a terrorist is way out of line - even though he is one of the architects of the BBC's absurd and highly-damaging policy on terror and terrorists and the use of the 'T' word.
I don't always agree with Andrew and the Moderator but I'm with them here.
WoAD, I really think you should do the right thing and apologise to Nick Reynolds.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
The article complained of above also contains this quote:
'One of those involved in his capture was former Bolivian army officer Gary Prado.
"It has become a fable, a business, an invention of things that takes all seriousness out of the story. It's a show, that's all," he said.'
As for history and communism I said that history (or perhaps more accurately, people) hadn't made up it's mind about Guevara, not about communism.
Impartiality does not consist of absolute neutrality about every event. Sometimes impartial reporting will reflect a consensus or dominant view, sometimes it will try and find a balance around opposing views. As I said above, this is about fine and difficult matters of editorial judgement, not bias.
I am not an expert in this subject, but Haversack says that the only people who approve of Guevara are:
"the current totalitarian regime in Cuba, hard left revolutionaries who want to replace democracy with a one-party state, and shallow Western college students who know little about what he actually did."
I wonder if Haversack has been to Bolivia, the subject of the article complained of above.
I don't mind being insulted. You get used to it. I'm just saying other people might mind it more than me.
Telford:
"As for history and communism I said that history (or perhaps more accurately, people) hadn't made up it's mind about Guevara, not about communism."
But Guevera was killing people in the name of Communism (and not as a conscript, as an active proponent of violent Communist revolution). He also killed people who he felt like killing when he had the chance. How come in your mind he gets an exemption, when the other Communists (rightly) don't? The only reason I can see is that this romantic myth has sprang up around him.
Anyway, the BBC has certainly not been even remotely neutral. There has been a number of articles on the BBC site this week that discuss Che. The proportion of positive comments about Che has been vastly higher than the negative comments.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I didn't say he had an exemption in MY mind, but perhaps in other people's.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
