I was shocked by how incredibly positive and obviously biased Creelman’s article was. It seemed less like an objective article written by an American journalist about the leader of a foreign country than a propaganda piece written by a dictator about himself to convince his country and the world of how amazing he was. The way Diaz’s every gesture, expression, and action was excessively fawned over made the article as a whole less and less credible, as it became increasingly apparent that the writer had no intention whatsoever of portraying Diaz in anything but the best light, no matter what. It was slightly disturbing to see how easily some of Diaz’s questionable actions were glossed over or made out to be good. The article portrayed the brutal suppression tactics and harsh, unjust laws that Diaz had enforced as very minor, necessary evils required to ensure peace and order. These cruel practices, and his undemocratic practice of staying in office for so long, were portrayed as being for the people, especially for the lowly peons who needed him. Yet it was those lowly peons who were suffering under his unfair economic policies, none of which were brought up in the article at all. The few times that Creelman did bring up some subject that might cause discomfort among American readers, such as Diaz’s many terms in office, he was obviously doing so to allow Diaz to explain them away rather than to truly challenge some of Diaz’s actions.

Despite Creelman doing everything in his power to make Diaz seem like the most perfect, accomplished person in the world, I couldn’t help but get the impression that Diaz was condescending and either naive or deceitful. He claimed that the poor couldn’t properly participate in democracy because they were too uneducated, yet he claimed that universal education was one of his main goals. If his country’s poor were uneducated, that would be his failing, not theirs. I struggled to tell if Diaz was naive or deceitful because I couldn’t tell how much he truly believed what he was saying. He claimed that as soon as the USA gave Cuba and the Philippines their independence, any fear or hatred between those countries would vanish and there would be peace. If he really believed that long, bad histories of oppression could be forgiven that easily, he was naive. It is possible, however, that he knew that was an oversimplification, but he just wanted to say something that would gratify the American readers and make them like him more. He also claimed to believe that, after his decades of brutal policies, power would transfer peacefully and easily from him to whoever succeeded him. Considering that when the time came to retire as promised, he refused and ran for President again, this seems like it might also have been a manipulation tactic. The more he stressed how much he wanted to retire, the more selfless he would seem when he chose to stay in office for the supposed good of his people.