Oscar Biscet vs Nelson Mandela (let’s compare media coverage of these two Black political prisoners)


Why the virtual media black-out on Biscet’s suffering which took place 90 miles from our shores? Anti-communist human-rights activist Oscar Biscet was jailed and tortured by a Stalinist, terror-sponsoring regime that craved to nuke us, after a closed, kangaroo trial. His “crime” was peaceful protest.

All this took place 90 miles from U.S. shores in a locale absolutely lousy with international press bureaus and their intrepid “investigative reporters.” From CNN to NBC, from Reuters to the AP, from ABC to NPR to CBS, Castro welcomes all of these to “embed” and “report” from his fiefdom.

This fiefdom, by the way, is responsible for the jailing and torture of the most political prisoners (many black) per-capita of any regime in the modern history of the Western hemisphere, more in fact than Stalin’s at the height of the Great Terror. But from the media all we learn is that it provides “free and fabulous healthcare” while bravely suffering a “cruel” and “archaic” embargo by a superpower.

Nelson Mandela, on the other hand, was convicted by the independent judiciary of a U.S. ally after a trial perfectly open to international observers. His crime was terrorism.


Can I venture to guess, dear readers, which one of these black political prisoners you have heard most about in the U.S. media?

Thought so.

Our friends at The Blaze help disseminate a few items little understood outside of a few ethnic enclaves in south Florida.)



3 thoughts on “Oscar Biscet vs Nelson Mandela (let’s compare media coverage of these two Black political prisoners)”

  1. And, to this day, neither Walters nor Rather nor any of them feel any shame or remorse for playing into Castro’s hands and publicly treating him as if he’d been a famous comedian, sports star or music giant. And you know why? Because they enjoyed it, they got a kick out of it, and it cost them nothing (as they always knew it wouldn’t). Furthermore, it gratified their considerable egos and it was good for their careers. So why would they regret it? Because it was hypocritical, unethical, unbecoming and morally degenerate? Please. We’re talking MSM celebs here, and to paraphrase that paragon of virtue, one Rahm Emanuel, big-time “journalism” ain’t beanbag. Just ask the New York Times.

  2. Asombra, as usual, you hit the nail on the head. None of those enablers feel an ounce of remorse, because they’re shallow, unscrupulous and only interested in the scoop that will advance their career, and castro is a scoop, a really big scoop! To rub shoulders with him is to get a bit of his glitter, little does it matter that its specked with blood. When they see Cuba, they see fidel castro. NOTHING MORE. Certainly not the masses. To them, Cuba is equal to castro. They see him as the embodiment of a rock star, a living icon. They don’t see a psychopath, they don’t see a megalomaniac who has completely destroyed a country, and if they do, they rationalize it. And the worst thing is that he loves the attention, he loves how they laugh of at jokes in the same way that Emperor Caligula’s courtiers would laugh at his sick jokes. He relishes it. It’s vomitous to see them feed his ego. I seriously feel like puking looking at this.

Comments are closed.