Faustian Bargain – UPDATED
From the The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy:
(FOW-stee-uhn) Faust, in the legend, traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge. To “strike a Faustian bargain” is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power.
I have always claimed that the international media that has reporters officially stationed in Cuba have made a Faustian Bargain. The have made a deal with the devil, trading their journalistic souls for the opportunity to be in Cuba.
I never understood why the decision makers at places like the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN would allow Cuba to set the kind of conditions that it does when they would loudly denounce any other country in the world that tried the same thing.
The recent expulsion from Cuba of foreign journalists that have been deemed as "too negative" by the Castro regime is OBVIOUS proof that that quid pro quo exists between the international press and the Cuban government. Presumably any journalists that haven't been asked to leave have not been judged to be "too negative." On that grounds any report they file should be suspect.
Imagine if the White House decided to expel a foreign journalist because he was "too negative." What would happen? A justified international outrage would follow, that's what. But again outside of us interested Cuba observers this will probably create not even a ripple of reaction. That's because of the paternalistic and racist attitude I alluded to earlier this week. It's OK to accept for Cubans what we would never accept in the democratic west.
Why would any self respecting journalist or journalistic organization accept conditions under which it is essentially censored? What is the big story that they are so afraid to miss that they are willing to exchange their credibility to cover it? It's often been speculated that the big story is the death of fidel castro. But honestly what's the big deal? We all know what's going to happen when that day comes. The regime will mobilize the army, step up the repression, and put on a huge kabuki theater production of a state funeral. Are these supposedly unbiased media outlets really just vying for a preferred camera position at a funeral?
I can't believe that these resourceful journalists, the kind of people that broke the watergate story, can't come up with creative ways to report about Cuba without having credentialed reporters there operating under strict guidelines set forth by the regime.
The Miami New Times, a free, alternative weekly newspaper in Miami, found a way. They had an undercover journalist in Cuba reporting the TRUTH about the situation there. That reporter did more good reporting about in a couple of weeks than CNN has done in the ten years it has has had a bureau there.
It's time to put pressure on these journalistic organizations to start reporting the truth about Cuba regardless of the consequences. It's time to shame them into doing what should have been doing since the beginning.
UPDATE: I was just reading an AP report about the journalist expulsions written by Anita Snow, another one who has made a Faustian Bargain, and almost vomited when I read this:
The government — like many around the world — has long used the annual reaccreditation process to review the work of international journalists.
It's true, I'm sure, in some countries. Countries that most people don't think very highly of. Why didn't Ms. Snow mention a few of those "many" countries? This is, again, a way to soften the message. It's like saying "well this practice isn't really that uncommon." Again I want to know which countries she's speaking about. That way I'll know to take any reports coming out of those countries with an even bigger grain of salt than I normally do because by definition the they are self censored.
This reminds me of CNN ADMITTING they withheld stories in Saddam's Iraq, all so they could brag about being the only outlet with a Baghdad bureau.
Feel I should chime in on this as a journalist. Some food for thought: On Anita Snow - what she says is correct, in my dealings as a journalist, North Korea, Syria, many countries that keep a close eye on journalists perform yearly "reviews." Media outlets operating in Havana have not necessarily made a Faustian Bargain. Wire services generally don't slant news either positively or negatively. They're there simply to report on day-to-day activity in any particular locale - i.e: Fidel Castro makes an address on the Malecon, Ricardo Alarcon welcomes Brazilian business leaders to Cuba for meetings, etc . . . AP doesn't employ columnists in Cuba, they're merely there to report on day-to-day happenings verbatim. From time-to-time they’ll let out a more “featurey” article like the recent ones on the Chinese community in Havana, but that’s not their true reason for being in Cuba. They’re a good bunch of journos (those folks from AP) and I know several of them. Hope this helps.
Gabriel
I just read those two pieces you linked from the Miami New News. Very powerful!
I wonder if Anita Snow is related to Edgar Snow, Mao's Herbert Matthews:
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=58826
There you go being logical again. Come on guys...big media journalists don't employ logic. They feel...
Gabriel,
I'm not sure whether you are justifying Anita Snow's reporting specifically, or just generally commenting on your perception of AP journalist's performance in Cuba. You state that they are there "simply to report on day-to-day activity." You believe they do not slant the news. And, have not necessarily made a Faustian bargain.
But, how long has Anita Snow been stationed in Cuba? In all that time, can you point to just two articles were she reported on a day-to-day activity that was negative to the castro government? Any reports on the lack of due process for political prisoners which is a day-to-day event in Cuba? Any reports on the plight of Las Damas de Blanco and their men? Any reports ont he day-to-day lack of freedom of speech, of association, of the press in Cuban society?
I am not being critical of you. But, I cannot recall any piece by Anita Snow that could be deemed even remotely critical of the castro government. In all her time there, did she not "sniff out" a single day-to-day activity on which to report that would reflect negatively on the Cuban government? She must not be looking very hard.
On the specific piece commented on here, she goes out of her way to justify the "review" of these journalists' status by stating that "other governments" do the same thing. Oh, then it's just a "normal" procedure. You helpfully point out that this is done by Syria and North Korea (and perhaps others of their ilk). She does not provide this information because, apparently, that would cast the castro government in a negative light.
So, very respectfully, I do not see how you can conclude that she (and others posted in Cuba) are there merely to report day-to-day activity, and do not slant the news to keep the beast at bay.
Take some comfort, Letta Tayler, reporting for Newsday quotes Dan Erikson from the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in DC, "The decision is significant and disturbing because it is a clear sign that Raúl Castro may take the tough approach of his brother." And these: Watchdog groups including Reporters Without Borders condemned the ban. José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director of Human Rights Watch, said it would have "a chilling effect" on coverage of Cuba.
Cuba expert Robert Pastor said silencing the reporters "points to deepening feelings of vulnerability" within the interim government as it approaches an eighth month with its legendary leader sidelined.
Cuba has intensified its longtime limits on foreign media since Castro's illness. Several U.S. reporters -- including one from Newsday -- have been denied short-term visas.
So much for that "opening" we've been hearing so much about. Tell me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Cuba somehow managed to sabatage every serious campaign in the US to lift the embargo?
Good grief, sabotage, really, I do know how to spell. It's late.
The worst form of bias reporting is that which the reporter does not even realize IS bias.
Today, February 24th, marks the anniversary of the "Grito de Baire, the beginning of Cuba's definitive War of Independence (1895), also known as "Marti's Revolution." This epic war, the consummation of 75 years of struggle, would cost the lives of one-quarter of the island's population and lay waste to the whole of it, from one end to the other. Spain, resolved to fight to the last man and the last peseta to keep the last and greatest remnant of its colonial empire, imprisoned the entire non-combatant population of the countryside, women, children and the elderly, in an attempt to break the will of the Cuban rebels by starving their wives, children, sisters and parents. 300,000 died of famine and disease in these campos de reconcentración, whose denizens were not even allowed to bury their dead in order to encourage epidemics in the camps. But still, under the military genius of Máximo Gómez and the unconquerable sword of Antonio Maceo, who fought in a 1000 battles and never lost one, the Cuban rebels were in control of 90 percent of the island by 1898 and Spain on the brink of surrender when the U.S. opportunistically intervened in our War of Independence. The U.S. did not defeat Spain, but it did wrest from us our hard-fought independence and sovereignty. But it is better not to remember that on this day, but the courage and resolve of those 19th century Cubans, led by José Martí, the first martyr in that struggle, who bequeathed to us the powerful lesson that "It is better to die on our feet and live on our knees."
"It is better to die on our feet than to live on our knees."
Gabriel:
I can understand, somewhat, your argument that the reporters stationed in Cuba are there for day-to-day reporting of the happenings about the island. It is also true that many, if not all, repressive regimes--like the ones you mentioned--do review the reporters writings and either renew or cancel their press credentials based on their review.
As a journalist--which I am not--I can imagine you have to walk that thin-line between reporting the truth, and risking the loss of access to information. It becomes a chess game where you try to beat your opponent without him realizing he is being beaten. It is not easy and like I mentioned before, based on this assumption I "somewhat" agree with you.
However, let's go back to the chess analogy; for how many years--or should I say decades?--will the press allow the castro's to continually check-mate them? As Henry mentioned in his original post, if the Bush administration ever did something one-hundredth as bad, they would be lambasted on every form of media for weeks. Take, for example, the criticism the Bush administration received for moving Helen Thomas' seat in the White House press room from the front row to a row farther back. Bush was accused of everything from censorship to being vindictive of a critical reporter.
Explain to me, Gabriel, how the MSM in this country finds a seat reassignment for an elderly, rambling, and often times obnoxious and disrespectful, reporter a vicious and vengeful act, yet finds nothing inherently wrong with the castro's kicking out their own for not towing the party line?
One thing I did want to say about the so-called day-to-day activity reporting that these Cuba based journalists are there to do; how far do they have to leave their residences to see the horrible living conditions of the Cuban people? I would bet you that these journalists, as they sit under the shade of a palm frond covered bar on a beautiful beach in Cuba, enjoying an ice-cold mojito look around, and with their journalistic instinct tingling, wonder why they are in Cuba and the only Cubans around them, work there. There are no Cuban tourists, visitors or sight-seers. Just maids, waiters, maintenance people and that nice smiling Cuban bartender that made him/her that excellent mojito.
I don't know about you, but I'm not a journalist and I think that is quite a peculiar thing worthy of being reported to the world.
Tomas,
A biased reporter is by definition unaware of his bias. And that is why it's dangerous. That's why all these reporters from the MSM continually deny the bias. In their little world they are the norm, neither extreme right or extreme left. A reporter who knowingly slants stories is not biased. I'm not sure what the word is for it (it's certainly worse) but it's not bias.
I recently heard Christopher Hitchens talking about media objectivity and he said that it's not a matter of being even handed it's a matter of being willing to change your mind in light of hard evidence.
That's why Ana Menendez is not objective (although she is columnist the standard for her is different). I sent her objective evidence from the same sources she used to try to prove her hypothesis and she did not accept that evidence.
Tomas,
A biased reporter is by definition unaware of his bias. And that is why it's dangerous. That's why all these reporters from the MSM continually deny the bias. In their little world they are the norm, neither extreme right or extreme left. A reporter who knowingly slants stories is not biased. I'm not sure what the word is for it (it's certainly worse) but it's not bias.
I recently heard Christopher Hitchens talking about media objectivity and he said that it's not a matter of being even handed it's a matter of being willing to change your mind in light of hard evidence.
That's why Ana Menendez is not objective (although she is columnist the standard for her is different). I sent her objective evidence from the same sources she used to try to prove her hypothesis and she did not accept that evidence.
"A reporter who knowingly slants stories is not biased. I'm not sure what the word is for it (it's certainly worse) but it's not bias."
Henry,
The word is HP.
Great piece, Henry. I think you're right on. I only want to add that it is not only because of racism (that they would not accept for journalists in their own contry what they accept for journalists in Cuba), but also because castro is a left wing dictator. I'm sure if that had been done in Pinochet's Chile, it would have a very different reaction from the MSM. --frank
[...] got the access that none of the foreign media outlets based in Havana have gotten despite their Faustian bargains with the regime. It’s quite easy to predict what Penn’s work would look [...]