What the New York Times omitted from its latest article on Cuba

By John Suarez in Notes from the Cuban Exile Quarter:

What the New York Times omitted from its latest article on Cuba

Addressing distortions, inaccuracies and omissions in The New York Times reporting on Cuba

Day after meeting Secretary Kerry, Dr. Biscet questioned legality of new relations

The New York Times has a terrible track record in reporting on left wing totalitarian regimes in general and Cuba in particular. The latest example was to be found in the opinion piece on August 24, 2015 by pro-Castro New York Times journalistErnesto Londoño.

Londoño quotes some of the dissidents who met with Secretary Kerry at an informal cocktail following the official event to which they were not invited.  He fails to mention the presence of Dr. Oscar Elías Biscet, who is a former prisoner of conscience who has been the subject of an hour long documentary “Oscar’s Cuba” and 2007 Medal of Freedom Recipient. U2’s Bono also gave a shout out to Dr. Biscet during their 2011 tour. This is a high profile and internationally recognized pro-democracy activist but he supports U.S. sanctions on the Castro regime and over twitter the day after meeting Secretary Kerry called the normalization of relations a violation of law:

Diplomatic links between USA and Cuba violates Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton): Title II, Section 201(13-14); 202; 203; 204; ; 205 and 206.

Is this not newsworthy? Or the fact that on August 24, 2015 state security (G2) detained Oscar Elías Biscet and released him 20 km from his home in order to prevent him giving the presentation: Why is it that U.S. – Cuba relations violate the Libertad Act?

Continue reading HERE.

2 thoughts on “What the New York Times omitted from its latest article on Cuba”

  1. So the old gray bitch returns to its own vomit for the zillionth time, as it will surely keep doing. Yes, it is always justified to call out bad faith, but the NYT defines bad faith, certainly when it comes to Cuba, so is it not demeaning by now to keep pointing out the blatantly obvious? This shit could hardly be less subtle, for crying out loud. Must we keep giving these bastards the satisfaction of having pissed us off yet again? Yes, I know, the little Colombian turdlet is especially galling as a Cuba “expert,” which could well be intentional, but again, there are so many others like him that we need to be more selective–that’s the point of the phrase “beneath contempt,” as he’s scarcely worthy of even that.

Comments are closed.