From an interview with a historian at MercatorNet:
Geoffrey Shaw: Americans have been poorly served by this description of Ngo Dinh Diem. The above portrait was created for public consumption mostly by young reporters (in their 20s) who had little experience of the world at large, no expertise in Southeast Asia and a desire for sensational stories.
As New York Times reporter David Halberstam admitted after the death of Diem, he and his colleagues had created popular political fiction so as to sell papers. Their spin also served the purpose of Averell Harriman, an American senior diplomat with tremendous influence over President Kennedy, who had an intense dislike for and a lack of confidence in Diem.
The real Diem was so admired by patriotic Vietnamese of all stripes (including many Communists) that he was considered a prize to be won over; Viet Cong leader Ho Chi Minh tried this at least once, and Vo Nguyen Giap on many occasions.
Diem’s devotion to his country was so ardent that the French colonial rulers of Vietnam jailed him a few times for his refusal to play by their rules. They kept releasing him because of his talent for governing villages, and then provinces, was superior to that of any other Vietnamese in their administration. Early in his civil service career (his mid-20s) he earned the Mandate of Heaven amongst Vietnamese peasant farmers. This title is granted to leaders who exhibit the civic and personal virtues valued by Confucius. More.
Reality check: One could never trust elite media much; they were always in bed with progressives (who are increasingly left fascists). They have helped deliver millions to torture and murder, andneed to continue to justify their role.
True, but at one time, we needed them to know about the weather and traffic jams. Not any more.
Any younger person today who pays any attention to them is guilty of bad judgment and perhaps complicity in evil.
Prediction: It’ll get worse. For once thing, back in the 1960s, elite media types were confident that a historian like the one above would never be heard when it mattered. Now he can be heard in real time.
There will be efforts, in consequence, to control new media for “expressions of hate” = stuff that gets in the way of the “narrative,” facts that can no longer just be consigned to oblivion.
See also: Anyone who would let the New York Times
advise them on books…