Cuba Calling

"President Bush today challenged the Cuban government to make good on its apparent commitment to reform," says Michele Norris on Wednesday's ATC. She's not kidding. I guess poor Mee-shill doesn't see the irony of the head coach of Team Torture calling for reform on the little island where said team has one of its most notorious little workout camps. Norris finishes her opening lines with "Bush said he would allow Americans to send cell phones to Cubans." That's pretty rich, too. I wonder if it might be some of those same phones that the Decider had tracked while he trashed our quaint little Constitution - and got away with it?

I know, I know - I'm such a fuddy-duddy when it comes to our Bill of Rights. What really matters, according to Tom Gjelten, is "The issue of how the United States can support democracy in Cuba under the changing conditions there..." Democracy...seriously...just like in Haiti, Nicaragua, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.

Hard Reporting

This morning Scott Simon confessed to having idealized assumptions about Fidel Castro back when he was "of that generation of activists" (say what?). But never fear, the intrepid Simon changed his mind, telling us that "when I first went to Cuba on a reporting trip I retained some of the rosy assumptions of my youth but hard reporting challenges assumptions." Hard reporting - Scott Simon? - now that is funny!

Someone needs to toss a little cold water on Simon when he has these Walter Mitty delusions. Not only does he think he does "hard reporting" but thinks he's on leftist news show and has to challenge some of his colleagues or listeners about being apologists for Castro.

Hey, Simon, you're on NPR, remember? You're basically a mouthpiece for the State Department and an apologist for US militarism, nothing more and nothing less...well, maybe less.

(I noticed that American Experience on PBS is covering Castro & Cuba and it looks like a far more nuanced approach than anything I've ever heard on NPR - although Daniel Schorr had a pretty decent commentary about Cuba this week.)

Fair

On NPR's ethics portion of its website it states that coverage must be fair. Here's NPR's statement:

"'Fair' means that we present all important views on a subject. This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. But at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story."

Well, I've heard a lot of Cuba coverage in light of Castro's announced resignation. NPR has touted US government wishes for democracy, Bush demanding free and fair elections (!), human rights abuses, Codrescu's utterly one-sided rant against Castro, etc. Honestly, I don't have any problem with severe criticism of the Castro dictatorship and his human rights abuses. But I'm still waiting for the coverage of ALL important views on the subject - US state terror against Cuba, the Allende example of how the US treats socialists who build open societies, the human rights records of US trained and supported Latin American governments, the ruinous effects of the US embargo, the successes of health care and education in Cuba, etc. Something tells me I'll be waiting a long, long time.

If anyone hears some balanced reporting on Cuba on NPR news in the next several days, please post it to the comments section.

He's Like a Supercharged Castro!

Michelle Norris opens the smear-commentary on Venezuela by Ana Flaster, whose family left Cuba in the 1960s. Norris says:

"Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is known for picking fights with other world leaders like...his criticism of President Bush....
She [Flaster] says her relatives are obsessed with Chavez. He reminds them of Cuba's Fidel Castro, but she says there's one big difference: Venezuela's oil wealth makes the Chavez rhetoric more powerful."

Flaster and NPR need a serious reality check here. There is, in fact, one huge, overwhelming difference between the two leaders: Chavez has been elected repeatedly in open, free and fair elections.

Of course NPR doesn't like to look much into elections: they might discover that some countries get an incompetent, mean-spirited, authoritarian, relgious wacko for President with the help of Brother Jeb, Supreme Court interference, mob action, vote fixing, disenfranchisement, etc.

Wouldn't it be great to hear a commentary on NPR that examined the social justice accomplishments of Chavez in Venezuela. Or if they want to obsess on Castro, I'd love to hear one comparing the dreaded Fidel to some of the lovely Latin American leaders that the US has backed in during his time as the head of Cuba. NPR could compare numbers: opponents jailed and killed, literacy improvements, nutrition, health care, human rights, elections, political prisoners etc. True, Fidel would come out as a dictator with many flaws, but his crimes would barely register on the old tote board. US "friends" and allies in the region would outstrip him in every category - except for the ones involving improved standards of living.

That's a commentary I could listen to.

Dr. Gjelten and Mr. Hyde

Only in this absurd time in our nation could a "news" organization report about waterboy/waterboard Bush awarding a Medal of Freedom to a Cuban dissident with no sense of irony. Oh, but this is Tom Gjelten, who cut his sharp little teeth "reporting" on the wars in Central America in the 80s and 90s (see my earlier posts on his coverage of Chile, Nicaragua, or Venezuela to get a taste of his journalism).

It's interesting to note how this detailed report on the political prisoner in Cuba, who Bush is honoring, follows immediately after the report on Guatemala that avoids any mention of the US role in destroying Guatemala's civil society for nearly forty years.

BTW, I'm not in anyway justifying the disgusting treatment meted out to Oscar Biscet by the Cuban dictatorship. It's just the absurdly lopsided attention given to Cuban human rights issues compared to the absence of coverage given to US sponsored atrocities in Latin America.

Oh and we also got to hear about defender of fetuses and the Pentagon, Mr. Henry Hyde - one of Illinois' own.

Our Day is Coming

On ATC Michele Norris opens NPR's report on Cuba, "'Your day is coming,' that was the message from President Bush to Cuban dissidents today...it was an attempt to rally the world to help Cuban dissidents seize this moment." It's fascinating how hard it is to tell where Bush leaves off and Norris begins.

After this fine introduction, Michele Kelemen takes the baton and is off like Marion Jones. But poor Kelemen; she just can't get it straight on Cuba. Like a good little parrot, she chirps Bush verbatim, "He said of Cuba, the socialist paradise is a tropical gulag and he said there are horrors still unknown that once revealed will shock the conscience of humanity and shame the regime's defenders." That is some fine irony given the little US gulag that's been humming along down in Cuba for over five years, and yes there will be more "horrors still unknown" from Gitmo that will be revealed in the future (Is there a journalist in the house?)

So do we get any dissenting views on US policy toward Cuba? Sure, from Phil Peters of the far right Lexington Institute! Kelemen introduces Peters by commenting on Bush's speech: "...and though he won lots of applause from Cuba-watchers inside the room; those outside have serious doubts." What a brazen distortion of language. She implies that the range of Cuba-watchers extends from the rightwingers inside the US government to the rightwingers in rightwing think tanks! I'd say that fulfill's NPR's committment to "present all important views on a subject." Notice, too, how positive the misnomer "Cuba-watchers" sounds.

Well, Michele Norris, the Decider has declared that "your day is coming." But if you want to know what that glorious day looks like you might want to see it in action at our own little corner of "Cuba Libre." Just put on your X-ray glasses; you can't miss it!

A Most Difficult Case

If you bomb hotels killing a tourist, were involved in the bombing of a passenger plane killing 73 people, and were caught with 200 lbs. of explosives for blowing up an auditorium where a dictator and head of state you oppose is speaking (and were convicted of the crime) you are:

a.) a good ole boy who just likes to blow things up
b.) a lover of freedom and peace
c.) a boy scout working on a merit badge
d.) a terrorist

And so Steve Inskeep asks Greg Allen this morning, "Is it, is it fair to call this man a terrorist – given all these incidents in which he’s been linked, to which he’s been linked?" Is that bold, or what?

Oh, and Allen, who earlier described these activities as "several efforts of sabotage," replies, "You’ll certainly find many people around the world and in this country who have no problem calling him a terrorist. You have someone who there is evidence that links him to bombings and that certainly in this post 9/11 world would qualify someone as a terrorist. But you talk to people in Miami..."

I'm really floored by this. I honestly don't care how much I sympathize with someone's cause, if they blow up planes with people on them or tourist hotels - guess what - it's terrorism. I wonder if Allen would have described the destruction of the World Trade towers as "several efforts of sabotage?" Pretty damn crass...

Props to ATC

A tip of the hat to ATC for treating the release of fugitive and terrorist - Luis Posada - with the gravity it deserves. Michelle Norris interviews Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives (a treasure trove of information on the underbelly of US covert behavior). About the only complaint one could level at this story is that Norris might have challenged Kornbluh a bit more vigorously to substantiate his allegations against Posada (which he no doubt could have easily done).

Really, a fine report that conveys the utter hypocrisy of the US "war on terror."

(source of graphic)

Wrong Juan Forero, Guajira Wrong Juan Forero

I could use one of those 20,000 Cuban doctors that were mentioned in Juan Forero's piece on Morning Edition yesterday - because NPR is killing me! The unsavory (spooky?) Forero spends his three minutes of reporting on the tiny minority of Cuban medical workers who have defected from their assignments in Venezuela in "recent years."

Guess what? I'm actually more interested in hearing from the 20,000 doctors who are not trying to get to the US. What are they doing? How is it affecting the health of the Venezuelans? Do they like their work? What do they think of Castro, Chavez, the US?

It's really amazing to live in this country where medical care is such an insurance racket and so devoid of wholistic attitudes--and then to hear Forero zero in on such an agenda-driven non-story as the one he produced. You've got to wonder what organization he's really working for...

*Apologies to fans of "Guantanamera," I just couldn't resist.