In 1963, Encounter issued a commemorative anthology entitled Encounters to mark its tenth year of publication. I reviewed this in the New Statesman. My review may be found in my book, Writers and Politics. In the review I questioned certain rash assertions made by Sir Denis Brogan in his preface to this anthology, in, which he claimed that Encounter, ‘from its foundation, has been, a journal de combat, an organ of protest against the trahison des dens’. I pointed out that the political side of Encounter was consistently designed to support the policy of the United States Government: ‘One of the basic things about Encounter is supposed to be its love of liberty; it was love of liberty that brought together, we are told, the people who, in the Congress of Cultural Freedom, sponsored Encounter. Love of whose liberty? This is conditioned—as it would be for a communist, but in reverse—by the overall political conflict. Great vigilance is shown about oppression in the communist world; apathy and inconsequence largely prevail where the oppression is non-communist or anti-communist. This generalization needs to be qualified. Silence about oppression has been, if possible, total where the oppressors were believed to be identified with the interests of the United States. Thus the sufferings of Cubans under Batista evoked no comment at the time from the organ of those lovers of liberty, well informed though they undoubtedly are. For Nicaragua, Guatemala, South Vietnam and South Korea the same held good. The Negro problem—that is, the problem of the oppression of Negroes in large areas of the United States today—was consistently played down until quite recently, when the news made it impossible to play it down in the old way.’

At the time I wrote this review, I knew nothing of any connection between the cia and Encounter. This is significant at the present stage, because the present line of defence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter is that, though indeed—as they now admit—they were taking money from the cia this did not affect their policy which remained entirely independent and exactly what it purported to be. It is interesting therefore that a critic, analysing the content of Encounter, and not concerned with the sources of its finance, should have reached the conclusion that its policy was to support the American side in the cold war. That is to say, that even if we grant that the policy was independently formed, it was none the less exactly what the cia must be presumed to have wanted it to be. This happy coincidence could, of course, come about without any pressure whatever on the editor, if the editor responsible for the political side of the magazine had been originally hand-picked by the cia. Mr Braden has told us that in fact one of the editors of Encounter was ‘an agent’ of the cia.

On April 27th, 1966, the New York Times, in the course of its series of articles on the Central Intelligence Agency, stated that the cia ‘has supported anti-communist but liberal organizations, such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom and some of their newspapers and magazines. Encounter magazine was for a long time, though it is not now, one of the indirect beneficiaries of cia funds.’

There followed a letter, signed by four people, including Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., paying tribute to the ‘independence’ of the Congress for Cultural Freedom and implying, without explicitly saying so, that it was highly improbable that this paragon of independence could have been supported by the cia. Mr Schlesinger has subsequently admitted, in the course of a television debate with me on April 30th, that he knew when he was in the Government that the cia was subsidizing the Congress. The letter which he signed, following the New York Times story, was designed to give the contrary impression and to mislead the public. Messrs. Stephen Spender, Irving Kristol and Melvyn Lasky also wrote to the New York Times declaring that they had no knowledge of any indirect benefactions. Mr Lasky has recently been quoted as admitting that he knew of these benefactions in 1963. It follows that in signing this letter he, like Mr Schlesinger, was seeking to mislead the public.

The New York Times did not withdraw its original statement, but said that it had implied no reflection on the independence, etc, of those concerned.