Val Prieto’s recent “revelation” (in reality this was no surprise) of the CNN Cuba coverage memo got me thinking. Perhaps this is the right time to pull the rug out from under the Associated Press as well. What I have to say comes straight from the horse’s mouth; a fellow journalist and old friend at the AP. In order to maintain this individual’s anonymity – in a bid to protect his/her job – I am unable to publish his/her name. This will of course mean that the AP will simply deny the allegation and ignore it. No matter, this is a blog and not a weekly news magazine. That said, I can get away with printing information from an unattributable source. With regards to the information I am about to impart – do with it what you will. We shall refer to my mystery source as “Mr. X.”
Journalists the world-over generally share rather similar characteristics. We enjoy exchanging war stories, similar experiences and stories of romantic intrigue over endless pints of beer, snifters of Sambucca or glasses of whiskey. I remember fondly, some years back, going scotch-for-scotch with CBS’ Morley Safer. This, my friends, is a very bad idea. Being at least half his age, I figured – wrongly – that I could keep up with the old man while sharing stories regarding his coverage of Vietnam and my work during the September 11th terrorist attacks. Needless to say, Mr. Safer whipped the pants off me. Hats off to you, old boy.
A few months back I found myself seated at an outdoor café with another journo buddy of mine. Over the course of an hour, two Bass ales and a few cigarettes, the topic turned to Cuba and I leveled a pointed finger at Mr. X and simply laid out the obvious.
“You’ve got to admit that the AP’s coverage of Cuba lacks a good amount of integrity. You guys are sitting on a pile of stories if for no other reason, than the fact that you need to protect Anita’s [Snow] Havana bureau for the big story [Fidel’s death].”
I went on a bit further, employing Henry Gomez’s categorization of the AP/Havana Bureau deal as nothing less than a Faustian bargain with the devil. God forbid the AP should run with stories that paint the Castro regime in an overtly negative light. This isn’t to say that I want the AP, or any other news organization for that matter, to transform itself into an anti-Fidel propaganda agency. Just report the truth . . . the whole truth. Where are the expose’s on the island’s shattered healthcare system? Why, during the hub-bub back in August 2007 when the world was sure Fidel was in fact dead, did the AP choose to print fluff stories regarding the “average joe’s” feelings on the street. During my time on the island recently, the high-fives in anticipation of the dictator’s demise were everywhere. The hopeful rumors of the end of the regime were palpable and Cuba’s streets were electric with anticipation. One certainly didn’t get that feeling from the AP’s coverage.
Mr. X nearly blew beer out from his nose, let out a laugh and lit another cigarette.
“Come on man, everyone knows that. Hell, every foreign news outlet on the island is playing the same game.”
In short, he admitted the whole nasty truth of the matter. Mr. X came clean and attributed the AP’s dirty deal to business, pure-and-simple. The world’s largest news gathering agency needs to be on that island for the big coffin show and nothing – not journalistic integrity, not truth, not the lives of 12-million lost souls – is going to get in its way.
I only wish I could print Mr. X’s name, position and which bureau he works out of, but that would put an end to his/her position and completely alienate a good friend. This posting won’t affect AP operations in Havana one bit. Since I cannot reveal the source of the accusation, they will enjoy complete deniability. I know what I know however, and now, those of you reading this blog do as well. Again, do with it what you will.
-Anatasio Blanco
7 thoughts on “AP Editor Admits the Whole Nasty Truth”
Comments are closed.
As your journalist friend says, all the foreign press agencies in Cuba are doing the same. This is similar to Eason Jordan at CNN admitting after Saddam’s fall that CNN had doctored its news posts from Iraq so that they could stay in Iraq.
The sad point about this is that because AP and such agencies have a reputation for integrity(sarcasm meter), the pablum they emit from places like Cuba and Saddam’s Iraq is believed, when in truth what they emit is simply the equivalent of the AP stamp of approval on a Prensa Latina report. In fact, the foreign press in Cuba could save themselves a lot of money by simply taking out all their correspondents and reprint Prensa Latina reports as their own.
I wholeheartedly agree.
-AB
Yes, EVERYONE knows that, starting with the guilty parties, who are many, many things, but they’re not mindless idiots who don’t know what the hell they’re doing. The problem is that they simply don’t give a shit because they’re convinced they don’t have to, meaning they feel completely invulnerable because this amoral duplicity is absolutely standard practice throughout their business.
Besides, they can always soothe their conscience by resorting to the endlessly repeated lies and distortions about Cuba and Cubans before and after 1959. I mean, if the NY Times and the WaPo operate the way they have and still do regarding Cuba, it must be OK, right?
And don’t doubt for a second that there’s serious condescension and even racism at work here, in addition to obvious MAJOR ideological bias. I mean, who the hell do these damn uppity Hispanics think they are to refuse to BEHAVE and KNOW THEIR PLACE? How dare they not follow the script written by their betters? “Those people” in South Florida are just not right. Screw ’em.
Asombra, agreed. We’re patronized, condescended to, poo-pooed as radicals, called fanatics, you name it.
It’s important to recognize that this is an institutional problem. Individual journos may find some of these behaviors disgusting. One doesn’t always agree with one’s employer on everything. But the problem is that all of the major media outlets share this institutional bias toward cooperating with the regime rather than challenging it (as they do in the U.S.).
It’s important to recognize that this is an institutional problem. Individual journos may find some of these behaviors disgusting. One doesn’t always agree with one’s employer on everything. But the problem is that all of the major media outlets share this institutional bias toward cooperating with the regime rather than challenging it (as they do in the U.S.).