Finks is a tale of two CIAs, and how they blurred the line between propaganda and literature. One CIA created literary magazines that promoted American and European writers and cultural freedom, while the other toppled governments, using assassination and censorship as political tools. Defenders of the “cultural” CIA argue that it should have been lauded for boosting interest in the arts and freedom of thought, but the two CIAs had the same undercover goals, and shared many of the same methods: deception, subterfuge and intimidation.
Finks demonstrates how the good-versus-bad CIA is a false divide, and that the cultural Cold Warriors again and again used anti-Communism as a lever to spy relentlessly on leftists, and indeed writers of all political inclinations, and thereby pushed U.S. democracy a little closer to the Soviet model of the surveillance state.
Related collections and offers
|Product dimensions:||5.90(w) x 8.30(h) x 1.30(d)|
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
….Implicit in Plimpton's response, detailed in the pages to come, is the notion that became chronic throughout the American media that working journalists may justifiably do double duty as CIA assets, and that CIA assets may use the media in its many forms as cover, and as a soft power method of dampening blowback against its unpopular operations. Even after Humes begged his colleagues to come clean, Matthiessen's work for the CIA, however short-lived, remained secret until a 1977 article in The New York Times by John M. Crewdson outed him among scores of others embedded across media as undercover agents. If Plimpton and Matthiessen had listened to Humes, there would have been no story implicating The Paris Review. In the same article identifying Matthiessen's past service in that agencyout a year before The Snow Leopard would garner him the National Book Awarda former agent is quoted claiming, "'We 'had' at least one newspaper in every foreign capital,' and those that the CIA did not own outright or subsidize heavily it infiltrated with paid agents or staff officers who could have stories printed that were useful to the agency and not print those it found detrimental."
The program that The Paris Review was part ofMatthiessen through the front door and Plimpton through the backwas astonishingly vast. While Humes argued for transparency, Plimpton, for reasons we can imagine, balked. Many of the liberal interventionists who turned to culture to beat back Soviet influence were of course well-intentioned and were legitimately concerned about the spread of Soviet ideology at home and abroad. But their good intentions were nevertheless ill-conceived. If The Paris Review played a relatively small part in the CIA's media war, it also had many friends who joined the young CIA. Even if some could guess, no one, obviously, could know for sure what the young agency, born in 1947, would become. Furthermore, those tied to the CIA through funding designated for cultural programming were often unaware, as has been said many times before, where the money originated. But many others would lean on the contradictory line of being unaware, yet being nevertheless proud. It reeked of doublespeak and of hedging: if I had known who paid the bill, I'd have been proud to do exactly what I did do. But I didn't know.
Exposing these ties is not for the purpose of moral condemnation. It marks my attempt to look through the keyhole into the vast engine room of the cultural Cold War, to see if this ideology (one that favors paranoid intervention into the media over adherence to democratic principle) remains with us. If so, what do we lose by accepting that our media exist, in part, to encourage support for our interventions? And if we're ok with it during one administration, are we still ok with our tax dollars fostering the nexus of CIA contractors, military propagandists and journalists even when the opposition runs the government? Most importantly, whatif anythingcan we do about it all?
Table of Contents
Introduction A Lit'r'y Coup 1
1 Graduates 9
2 The Responsibility of Editors 21
3 Pasternak, the CIA, and Feltrinelli 47
4 The Paris Review Goes to Moscow 69
5 Did the CIA Censor Its Magazines? 89
8 James Baldwin's Protest 109
7 Into India 129
8 The US Coup in Guatemala 151
9 Cuba: A Portrait by Figueres, Plimpton, Hemingway, García Márquez, Part 1 161
10 Cuba: A Portrait by Plimpton, Hemingway and García Márquez, Part 2 181
11 Tools Rush In: Pablo Neruda, Mundo Nuevo and Keith Botsford 191
12 The Vital Center Cannot Hold 213
13 Blowback 239
Coda Afghanistan 259