Apart from the betrayal of the POUMists, the terror and the murder of Nin and Smillie, Orwell had been depressed by the attitude of the British press. "In Spain ... I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts ... I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various "party lines"." Carr writes, "He was appalled at the treatment of the May days as a 'Trotskyist Revolt' in papers like the "News Chronicle" which simply swallowed uncritically the Communist line; or Ralph Bates' report in "The New Republic" that POUM militiamen were playing football with Fascist troops ... Given this "supresio vero" by interested parties, how could true history be written? Propaganda would pass as truth; 'facts' could be manipulated. Those who monopolized communication could create their own history after the event—the nightmare of "Nineteen Eighty-Four"." Orwell attacked sections of the left wing press for suppressing the truth about Spain, indicting the Communists for instigating a "reign of terror"; and he never forgave Kingsley Martin, the editor of the "New Statesman" who turned down his articles on the Spanish Civil War on the grounds that they "could cause trouble." Malcolm Muggeridge remembered: "Once when we were lunching at a Greek restaurant in Percy Street he asked me if I would mind changing places. I readily agreed but asked him why. He said that he just couldn't bear to look at Kingsley Martin's corrupt face, which, as Kingsley was lunching at an adjoining table, was unavoidable from where he had been sitting before." "Ten years ago it was almost impossible to get anything printed in favour of Communism; today it is almost impossible to get anything printed in favour of Anarchism or 'Trotskyism'," Orwell wrote bitterly in 1938.