Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
South of the Border: Oliver Stone Does Chavez
Cuban leader Fidel Castro was interrogated some years ago by the New York Times, demanding to know why freedom of the press is not allowed in Cuba. Meaning, of course, beyond buzzwords, the inclusion of pro-capitalist reporting. To which Fidel's checkmate reply was something like, we'll allow that to happen when you allow a communist reporter on the staff of the New York Times.
Now years later, this reality in the more than ever corporate owned US media is far from a laughing matter, where the lines between who owns big business and who finances and controls the US media and what constitutes so-called news, are hopelessly blurred. Not to mention the concurrent pressure on journalists to self-censor in order to keep their jobs, in particular in the face of significant newsroom layoffs now with the economic crisis kicking in.
So where do news investigators seeking the truth find themselves in this moral and ethical quandary, while detouring around that dubious entity called freedom of the press? Apparently in nonfiction filmmaking, if a substantial portion of that impressive body of work lately is any indication. And most exemplary among those documentaries right now is Oliver Stone's South Of The Border.
Dismissing corporate media accounts as annoying fiction to say the least, the multiple Academy Award winning director (Platoon, Born On The Forth Of July, Midnight Express) and decorated Viet Nam veteran embarks on a road movie of a very different sort. Serving as narrator, interviewer and filmmaker, Stone is in search of the real story behind the election of seven leftist presidents in Latin America, many of them demonized by a suspicious colluding Washington DC and US media more interested in political domination and control of foreign natural resources, and who knows how many conflict of interest personal investments by politicians and media moguls alike.]
Written by eminent UK historian Tariq Ali (who had songs written in his honor by John Lennon and Mick Jagger) and Mark Weisbrot, a leading progressive authority on Latin America, South of The Border whether by design or coincidence, ironically shares its title with the deplorable 1939 western of the same name. Starring Gene Autry and a cast of Mexican villains, that film approached the notion of the southern border more akin to the current right wing anti-immigrant surge.
And in a very different 'discovery' of the Americas, Stone introduces the documentary with a gaggle of cackling imbecilic Fox 'news actors' mockingly misrepresenting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a cokehead, juxtaposed with Stone inviting the audience on a journey to find out who Chavez really is, and where he came from. Including the president driving Stone himself to the village and the hut made of palm leaves where he was born, along with the surrounding rural collectivization that has vastly improved the lives of the campesinos. And his continued efforts to oppose US meddling in the affairs of his country, who sabotage his government over domination of vital oil reserves. And attempted interference in his programs that address terrible conditions of poverty by promoting economic equality, and curtailing through nationalization the exploitation and enrichment of US connected corporations.
The history of imperialism then and now is linked in the film in great detail to its current propaganda arms, both the domestic and Venezuelan corporate media, while Cuba is seen sending in 10,000 physicians and free medicine to treat many impoverished Venezuelans who had never seen a doctor. And in effect, poverty in Venezuela under Chavez has been cut in half.
And though South Of The Border is steeped in detailed information and a vast corrective history, there are many casual moments of warmth, poignancy and humor to be had as well. Including Stone bonding with Chavez in an emotional exchange as two former soldiers in war; chewing coco leaves with Indigenous Bolivian President Evo Morales (contrary to US media propaganda, a substance in its organic state no more of a stimulant than coffee); and courageous challenges to IMF debt servitude by President Christina Kirchner of Argentina, who also remarks on how for the first time in history the leaders of the 'new' Latin America look just like the people who elected them. And in brief but similarly enlightening and euphoric sequences, Stone meets with the presidents of Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Paraguay.
Gritty, grassroots and genuine in spirit, South Of The Border's salt of the earth scrutiny initiates a reversal of the tide of corrupted US journalism. And lifts the entire entity out of its debased opportunism, even if on the big screen rather than the smaller version for US audiences. In a case in which size matters, in more ways than one.
South Of The Border opens at NYC's Angelika Theater on June 25th, and at Laemmle's Monica 4Plex 0n July 2nd in Los Angeles.
Cinema Libre Studio has been a leader in the distribution of social issue and political films that tackle timely issues. More information is online at: cinemalibrestudio.com and southoftheborderdoc.com.
Look for South of the Border: June 25 in NYC (Angelika Film Center),
July 2 in Los Angeles (Laemmle's Monica 4-Plex and Laemmle's Sunset 5),
Pasadena (Laemmle's Playhouse 7) and Washington DC (AMC Loews
Shirlington 7), July 9 in Chicago (Showplace ICON Roosevelt
Collection), July 16 in San Francisco (Sundance Kabuki Cinema),
Berkeley (Rialto Cinemas Elmwood) and Palm Springs (Cinemas Palm D'Or),
July 23 in Phoneix (Harkins Valley Art) Dallas (AMC Grand 24) and
Houston (AMC Studio 30), July 30 in Minneapolis (Showplace ICON at The
West End) and Seattle (Regal Meridian 16). More to come soon, check
details at http://southoftheborderdoc.
* * *
93 Comments so far
Show AllVery happy to hear about this film. I spent some time in Ecuador, which elected a progressive president and revised their constitution so that Mother Earth has rights, too.
I'm not ready to concede that Castro is a saint, but he has a better health care plan than the US. He also capitalizes on Latin America's dislike of US interventions in that part of the world.
Cubans weren't allowed to have cell phones or personal computers. When Eritrea was fighting for its independence from Ethiopia, Castro sent Cuban troops to help Ethiopia. He also supported the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. THat's why I don't think he's a saint.
Cuba not only provide good health care for its people, they made sure that they are all well educated, so in the end the Cuban people will decide for themselves what to do.
The Cuban government provided for the health, education, and welfare for its people inspite of the embargo, threat of invasion, and numerous asassination attempts on Fidel by the US government.
bingo
bligh4
I guess that the cuban people will have a CHANCE to decide once the Castro brothers are gone.
This is a film that has been " buzzed " about for weeks and I can't wait to see it. Americans need to talk to Venzuelans of all stripes to understand what is happening there. The wealthy hate Chavez for redistributing their monopoly money. Even some unions turned on him when he nationalized the oil industry because they lost their lucrative and corrupt positions. Most honest people, outside of our gov't and media, will tell you Chavez is no bad guy. All the leaders mentioned are just very, very sick of Yanqui Imperialism. I think we all can agree on that point. Viva la Stone!
Thanks for the lesson. Now, how many actual citizens have you talked to about the movie, the man, etc? I'm quessing your ifs, ands an butt are gone from hacks. Since you mentioned it I dislike that you imply that Cannes is the be all and end all. Film snob name-droppers really cause me to hack. Gag, too for that matter.
It's Mr. Linkwray to you. I can imagine you and a big box of greasy popcorn and Ike&Mikes at Cannes. Calling me a fool and not really commenting about anything other than yourself shows your legendary appreciation of you is and quite impressive. P.S.- I've got friends in country and people who've just returned and people living here from there that I talk to about this subject. Since you seem to be paid quite well I won't bother asking, I'll just assume, that your some PR hack(your word) for the MSM.
Boys, boys, settle down. We're all basically on the same side. Take it from a "Monsanto troll."
"Cuban leader Fidel Castro was interrogated some years ago by the New York Times, demanding to know why freedom of the press is not allowed in Cuba. Meaning, of course, beyond buzzwords, the inclusion of pro-capitalist reporting. To which Fidel's checkmate reply was something like, we'll allow that to happen when you allow a communist reporter on the staff of the New York Times."
Not just pro-capitalist reporting... any reporting not sanctioned by the government is banned in Cuba... all media, tv and print, is run by the state. This is not the case with the New York Times which is part of a private corporation. You cannot even compare the two.
I hate the corporate media in the united state more than anyone... which is why I read commondreams.org everyday... but that does not mean i support the repression of cubans within cuba... or are cubans not deserving of freedom of speech?
This is a hypocritical and ignorant article.
Authoritarianism is evil, no matter where it comes from.
In the name of progressivism, please stop running these pro-authoritarian articles.
"Not just pro-capitalist reporting... any reporting not sanctioned by the government is banned in Cuba... all media, tv and print, is run by the state."
And, effectively, how is that different than the USA?
Right-wing Cubams have freedom of speech. They are free to grumble amongst themselves at home or even on the street, just like we on the left are free to do here.
And don't tell me how obscure websites like Commondreams is in any way a suitable substitute for the NYT, WP, FOX, CNN, etc.
While neither US style or Cuban style suppression of speech can be defended, true free speech is only possible when the speech of the wealthy and power, spoken through 100-foot diameter megaphones is suppressed, so that everyone else, speaking through 6-inch megaphones, can be heard at all. This is effectively what they are trying to achieve in Venezuela.
Hey ardent...
I posted for the first time a couple days ago.. It is frustrating to me when I see apologists for the Castro regime because it touches me and my family personally so I am pretty passionate about it!
This feature film seems like it's long overdue.
AD
mispost
"right-wing cubans have freedom of speech"
your first mistake is classifying anyone who has problem with a "communist" dictatorship as right-wing... being left-wing does not equal being authoritarian...
or maybe you have a different definition of the term "left-wing" than I do...
"dissidence is the highest form of patriotism" - howard zinn
i truly believe that... and that doesn't make you right or left wing it just makes you human...
your second mistake is saying that there is free speech in cuba... not even the most ardent castro supporter would back this up... how could you even say that after 50 years of a dictatorship, thousands dead, millions separated....
If you dislike the state of the US you can do something about it to improve it... at a grass-roots level or any way you can and you can raise awareness like what we do on this website....
if you find it futile then you can leave....
In Cuba if you protest you will find yourself in jail or worse... and you do not have the option to leave so many DIE in the ocean trying....
I hate the corporate control of the mainstream media in the united states, the corporate control of the country in general is to me the biggest problem.... but we ALL deserve basic civil liberties.... Cubans are not inferior to you.
Long live a free and sovereign cuba
Cuba does not kill or imprison protestors or those who express dissent.
Keep in mind that there are so-called protestors in Cuba who are actually on the CIA payroll, so of course they get imprisoned. But eve then, I don't recall anyone getting executed in a long time.
Cuba is a nation under continuous attack from the most powerful and malevolant nation on earth, so of course there are some restrictions on civil liberties. If the US would end it's war, Cuba just might lighten up.
SaboCat...
dissidents are still incarcerated but you are correct in that there have not been any executions of political prisoners in recent years... I believe the last 2 executions were around 7 years ago when two young men tried to hijack a ship to escape the island... (please correct me if I am wrong!) but over 50 years many have died unfortunately for voicing their opinion and many of these were heroes of the revolution... there have been many purges over the years but none recently like you said.
I don't think Cuba is relevant anymore in the international arena, at least not since the special period of the 90's after the Soviet collapse... the U.S. only maintains the embargo due to the cuban-american lobby... it is a failed policy and thank god the views are starting to change....
that being said, I truly do not believe in justifying basic human rights. Especially not when it is my own people.
That is what I meant by it was hypocritical to fight for human rights but to ignore those of cubans...
"i am entitled to my opinion. I am cuban and wish nothing more than for the day when my country can be free... and by free i mean a liberal and sovereign nation..."
Yes, you do have a right to speak out. And peopel have a right to reply, as they have. Cuba is more sovereign now than it has ever been, so I'm not sure why you would mention that. Unless maybe your last name is "Batista". I'm also concerned that your definition of "freedom" marches nicely with the liberalism that ermits the domination of a private economy. That did not serve the majority of Cubans well (with the exception of many of the residents of South Dade).
I don't support dictatorships, either, but by engaging in nearly a half century of warfare--primarily economic and political--against an island is hardly the incubating condition for democracy to take root. You may not know that, Jorge, but I'm certain many who share your opinion do.
Many of us support Castro ultimately because the *general* opposition to him has absolutely no interest in either freedom or democracy, and many of us know full well what will happen to Cuba if the current state disintegrates. I think if there were no obvious and direct threats against Cuba both from the US and the exile community, your case would be much more powerful and persuasive.
drone... i would say that in Cuba's history... the Cuban government is the most sovereign right now it has ever been... (ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union). I also believe that the regime prefers isolation for this very reason. The reason I stress sovereign is because on sites like these many people think that it is one man's tyranny over the people but against the US OR a US dominated pseudo-colony... I urge people to look to a country where the people can be free and have their rights respected but the sovereignty respected as well... that is what I want.
While the post 90's Cuban government, in isolation, has much freedom to do what it wants,
I cannot recall an era in Cuba's history where the actual Cuba's population has been treated as second class and foreigners (regardless of where you are from) have been so privileged... just recently restrictions on allowing Cubans access to (once public) beaches and hotels have been lifted... but still the stark difference between foreigner and cuban is overwhelming right now... there should be no special privileges for foreigners...
By freedom I do not mean economic freedom only... I am more concerned with issues of freedom of speech, association, and religion which I believe are fundamental to all human beings... While Cuba has eased up on its repression of homosexuals and religion... alternate political parties, independent journalists, and freedom of expression are still outlawed.... this is my main concern.
In your reference to history, you infer that Cubans who have left Cuba were part of a privileged class in Cuba...
The first wave was those loyal to Batista.... this is natural in a revolution...
but Castro had the support of the vast majority of the population, this was a revolution to depose a dictator and Castro was promising the restoration of democracy and a return to the constitution of 1940... this as we all know did not happen... dissidence was not only in the public arena but within the high ranks of the leaders of the revolution....
to classify those who leave Cuba as privileged is simply not true... at least not after the first few waves in the early 1960's...
the largest wave to leave Cuba was in the mid 60's when the middle classes started to leave.... and since then we have had a steady wave over decades including the marielitos and the various rafter crises which continue to this day... these are not exactly what I would call aristocrats.
I agree with you that the US policy toward cuba has been a disaster and I wish for the US to open up completely to Cuba... although I do not think the Cuban government wants this at all... As I mentioned above, I believe they prefer the freedom isolation gives them.... if anything, the embargo only strengthens the dictatorship and does nothing for the people.
In principle I agree, but there are caveats here Jorge. Cuba needs more than markets to open. They need security from the US in order to self-determine. And it is this second problem that is really the source of the conflict as it is with most revolutions that are seen as antagonistic to capital. Castro's extremely sharp, and he's always known that with the US and its history of global interventionism on behalf of corporate commerce, there is almost no way to build a regime predicated on entirely different values.
It is a difficult choice to make. Chavez is one of the few who has been marginally successful at conducting a largely peaceful, electoral revolution while allowing much of the opposition to remain in place. But even this has cost him dearly, almost forcing a cult of personality to emerge since he requires such overwhelming electoral support from the poor to continue to administer the nation and try to build enduring institutions that will function after he is gone in the face of constant opposition from the very forces that drove the majority in that country to their knees and kept them there.
The only solution for your aspirations involves a two-way committment. You can let revolutionary systems define themselves democratically with free elections, press, speech and association PROVIDED that there is no external interference in the evolution of those systems by antagonistic states. Short of that, this is almost always going to be the outcome.
The US right now is a threat to Cuba in that it would seek to completely open up the market... Cuba could open up without going from one extreme to the other... when the dictatorship ends, and it will... I hope it follows the model of certain eastern bloc countries and also learns from their mistakes.... you can make the transfer in a moderate way and there have been success stories (Czech Republic) and failures (Russia).
I believe the embargo has no bigger fan than the castro brothers because it solidifies their grip on the people, which is easier to do in "isolation." (although in reality, all countries except for the us are free to visit cuban and do business there as well)
The embargo also gives a reason to put blame on Castro's failures and justify repression of human rights...
I agree with you that Castro, as a politician, is a genius.
As far as the US wanting to invade Cuba or kill Castro, those days are over... with the end of the Soviets was the end of Cuba as an international player.... Cuba lost over $5 billion/year in Soviet Aid in the 90's and has to reconstruct its economy... this left no room for internationalist endeavors and this mantle has been picked up today by Mr. Chavez in Venezuela. Cuba today is symbolic more than anything.
Chavez has conducted a democratic revolution but as soon as he has the opportunity he undermines democracy altogether by consolidating power in all 3 branches and destroying any separation of powers, leaving him unchecked...
his willingness to shut down media that criticizes him is very unsettling. Unfortunately there is no viable alternative right now and Chavez for better or for worse has been the only man to speak up for Venezuela's poor... but again this does not justify his authoritarian tendencies... I wish he would take the money he gives away to build up allies or buy weapons and use it to build up venezuela's infrastructure, further improve education, and really live up to the goals of the bolivarian revolution
It's hard to believe how ignorant you are! Unless of course you have a political agenda designed to overthrow socialism in Cuba. Sorry, but we see through you. Just give it up. You're in the wrong forum.
socialism can be democratic, it does not have to come at the expense of civil liberties...
If I were Cuban I would prefer to be subject to another Cuban than subject to the monstrous Yankee sledgehammer. If I were Iraqi... If I were Afghani... same thing.
rtdury, well that is you... I in my right mind cannot believe a human being would want to be dominated by another.
I am Cuban and I am subject to no one but myself. I abhor tyranny in any form.
"by free i mean a liberal and sovereign nation"
Honest questions, I'm not asking this in hostility. Do you support the goals and aims of the Cuban Revolution (by that, I mean if you were to come to power would you dismantle/privatize/ration off the health care and educational system, would you privatize most state assets including the amazing bio tech industry, would you commit to IMF style austere measures to attract foreign capital, etc)? If you were to "reform" Cuba would it be the same old "free market" measures (if so, we know what the effects on Cuba will be. Cuba at that point would be as "sovereign" as Haiti or Jamaica) or would you democratize socialism and have more participatory measures, like in Bolivia, Venezuela and to a lesser extent Ecuador?
Maybe you pay attention to Cuba more than Colombia (I'll wait to see you comments in that thread). However, if you support the right wing in Colombia, with the worse human rights record in the Western hemisphere, where persecution of the opposition press is far more violent and widespread, then you have nothing to add here, you're far too non-objective to take seriously.
I do not support the abuses of human rights in Colombia, or anywhere else.
You ask me what I would do?
I chose to live in Europe because I am a fan of socialist democracy. Here we have free education and free healthcare but it does not come at the cost of the freedom of the common people.
You also have private healthcare and private education if you choose to take advantage of that.
I believe in public-private enterprise... I do think capitalism has its positives but it must be played with rules and good faith, even Adam Smith said capitalism would not work without good faith....
I think the rampant deregulation that has occurred in the US for the past 30 years is destroying that country from the inside-out.
I think we must encourage creativity and entrepreneurial spirit without trampling on others freedoms.
You ask me about the IMF, the IMF has been used as a tool to open up markets and deregulate third world economies for the benefit of more economically powerful nations who were built up using protectionism... it is patently unfair and it is the last thing I would want for Cuba.
readbetween,
instead of just throwing a one line insult, why don't you actually reply in a decent manner with some substance... just because you an I may not agree does not mean you can't converse intelligently.
I remain skeptical. I doubt that Stone understands the world of Spirit that forms traditional Indigenous Peoples lifeways; and is therefore subject to error. I am hopeful that he gets the importance of The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the beginning of the end of 500 years of Genocide. I hope he understands that the roots of tribal well being give birth to cooperative communities whose vision is far deeper than the western economic idea of socialism. I doubt that he understands the transformative power of Spirit in the personal and collective lives of South American Amerindians. Stone's "South of the Border," will likely reveal changes but not the deeper underlying roots of change and the reestablishment of traditional Amerincian cultures that have sustained the Peoples there for over 15,000 years. Please allow Native People's to speak for themselves absent the filter of western thought processes. Open your ears to Indigenous voices.
I spent 3 months traveling about southern Mexico in the early 1970s. The people were some of the warmest, most friendly folks I've ever met. I hope their attitudes and smiles have not changed too much.
I had my planned trip to Oaxaca cut short a few years ago with their uprising. I've heard great things about the people (minus Ruiz's thugs) and am still hoping to get there one of these days.
You should read Marx. Marx did an exhaustive study of the Iroquois Nation and how their society was structured. He labelled this system as "primitive communism" and advocated that modern human society needs to adopt a similar class structure. There is no contradictions between the Marxist striving for socialism and the culture of indigenous people in the Americas. Marxism simply extends these social relations to a modern technologically advanced society. It supports the main idea that private property = a class society. Production should be there for everyone to enjoy the fruits of their labour and not appropriated by an elite class of capitalists.
bligh4
Hugo is going to end up just another south american despot. Only Marxist instead of capitalist. I am waiting for the "Reichtag fire" moment when he imposes a dictatorship in name, not just in form.
While recognizing his cult-of-personality problem, exactly how is he a dictator "in form?"
"when he imposes a dictatorship in name, not just in form."
So when the CIA fails at topplling a democratically elected president (thrice), even one elected with a huge majority, it becomes a "dictatorship", i.e. not free like Iraq is under Bremer or Afghanistan under McChrystal.
My mistake, "dictatorship" or not, has nothing to with elections, obviously. It has to do whether or not you permit your resources and labour to be taken at the price US corporations prefer to pay it.
Clearly a South American country can only be "free" if US corporations are allowed unfettered exploitation. Thus, with Aristide thrice removed by force, Haiti is "free". If, on the other hand, you nationalize the oil under your soil, and use the wealth to benefit your citizens instead of US oil barons, then you are a "dictatorship".
Bligh, sell all of your personal possessions and donate the cash to Enron. Only then can you be truly free. Also, take time to marvel how wonderful are are rich oil oligarchs. Using your wealth to benefit the poor is another definite no-no. It has to be given to the rich.
I understand why you say it, but the right wing Cubans are evil, not stupid. What would YOU pay for a bumper sticker like the one above? They have bigger propagandists out there in bigger forums. This person is just bored and wants a reaction. If it's anything else it isn't worth the time to respond.
Oliver Stone goes where others fear to tread. Thanks to Stone we get another view of Chavez unfiltered thru our corporate press.
Just a reminder that the 4th fleet was re-introduced a few years back. People interested in the war against Chavez should always check:
Eva Golinger's site: http://www.chavezcode.com/
and
Venezuela Analysis: http://venezuelanalysis.com/
I don't think Chavez will go Marxist with power centralized at the top. The Chavistas are developing "comunas" to develop local production of needed items and grass roots politics to counter any bureaucratic bourgeoisie that are in government departments.
There are still many poor people in Venezuela but there were even more before Chavez and at least now there is some hope that they can hold on to as they go forward.
In this country, although I am better off, I don't seem to have much hope of influencing laws which have a direct effect on my life. It's like I'm along for the ride and I may or may not have a safe future because of someone else's decisions.
Hopefully Stone's name--for better or worse--can drive up attendance a la M Moore (also for better or worse). It could hopefully open the market up for more films in this vein to get wider distribution which is vital given how abysmal the media is about gatekeeping elite narratives.
I saw an interview with Stone...as part of democracy now news coverage..
showing him with chavez...
and stone said something like:
americans are propagandized about "dictator, evil , threat" chavez..then he mentioned that much of South and latin america and caribbean are simply moving away from decades of american imperialism. he said about his work:
"We are american filmmakers, yes, but we are also CITIZENS and it's our obligation to tell truth".
I think too often people confuse "A Free Press" with one that is Owned by a Corporation and only reports news favorable to the same.
Press that is locally owned in Latin America (As far as the USA's Government is concerned) is not free because it will not report what that US Government wants it to report.
Most of "The Press" In North America and Europe is NOT free. It is owned by the Corporations and will only report Corporatism and what the Advertisers dictate.
If "Fox News" is an example of "The Free Press", I suggest the folk in Cuba and Venezuala are far better off with what they have.
From the link to Venezulananalysis.
>>Mérida, June 21st 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) assigned $56.3 billion of its budget to social development between 2001 and 2009, according to the state owned company’s president, Rafael Ramirez, speaking on Televen yesterday.
>>The money went to health, education, food, and other programs. Ramirez specified that $28 billion went to the National Development Fund (Fonden, which in turn has spent the money on public projects such as transport and energy infrastructure, technology, housing, and medicine), $1.8 billion went to communities, $2.06 billion went to the basic literacy program Mission Ribas, and $5.7 billion went to the health mission Barrio Adentro.
>>Also, PDVSA assigned $3.6 billion to agricultural projects, $2.8 billion to infrastructure projects, and $2.8 million to housing, said Ramirez.
See this is what the New York Times, CNN and FOX News do NOT want Americans to read.Americans are "Freer" because they can protest the oil spill in the Gulf and watch their livelihoods wiped out by BP while those poor suckers in Venezuala see 56 billion in profits from Oil used to build schools, provide health care and alleviate poverty.
Prior to Chavez, this 56 billion would have "freely" left the country to line the pockets of the Freedom loving Investor class that owned Exxon, Chevron and BP. You know so they could be "free" to watcth their Yachts race around the Isle of Wight.
by free press i mean independent journalism... it is illegal in cuba.
for example, common dreams in cuba would require approval of each article... approval from the state.
i don't know if you realize what this would mean... why would you want this for your country?
How is that different then news filtered by and approved by the Corporation?
Read the Article on the New York Times as example and how they provided news on the Gaza Flotilla which was basically little more then the Talking points of the Israeli Government. They failed to include the accounts of a SINGLE person on board those vessels.
I would suggest the Cuban papers gave a more accurate accounting of that event.
there is only one cuban paper, it is owned by the government and it is called granma.
you can check it out at granma.cu and let me know if you think it is objective.
cheers.
I think it is much more objective than the US "Free Press."
you have read granma and you think it is objective?
which article did you read?
the others listed are magazines like bohemia and newsletters, journals... (juventud rebelde)
i was referring to newspapers because we were talking about the ny times.
Yes, Cuba does have to improve the freedom of the press. Let's be objective though. Can you possibly claim that Colombia's opposition press is treated better than the opposition press is treated in Cuba? Can you claim that it isn't FAR more violent in Colombia? Colombia does have the worst human rights record in the hemisphere and it is the largest recipient of US aid in the region. How about Honduras since the coup? Mexico, where the US is following Plan Colombia, giving money and support to the police and national military (with a long list of human rights violations)? Undoubtedly the money is also, like in Colombia, going at least indirectly to paramilitaries who have close ties to the right and officials in the government. Again, it doesn't justify Cuba's lack of press freedoms. However, why are far worse cases ignored amongst other countries in the region who follow our orders like they're supposed to? There has to be reasons for this. What are the reasons? Can we apply uniform standards to Cuba and countries we support or are we going to do what we always do and be morally relative when it suits us?
In Cuba's defense, their human rights record has improved whereas Colombia's, Honduras's and Mexico's (amongst many others) have worsened over the years, as they've gotten closer to the US. This all to go along with the fact that our government has tried to kill Castro almost 700 times, organized a massive, decades long terrorist campaign against the country (killing thousands of Cubans since the revolution by terrorist violence, crop destruction, poisoning of livestock, bombings of hotels and airplanes, etc), allow refuge for right wing anti-Castro terrorists and has tried multiple coup attempts in Cuba. What would happen to ANY country's press freedoms (especially with the history that Cuba has with the US, far before Castro was even born) if this happened to them? What if the country attacking them was the most powerful and active military in the world?
Also, the opposition is active in Cuba. One group that runs a website on the island actually has translations available in multiple languages. The internet capacity on the island is not high enough for a website like that to run without help from the outside. Who's helping them and why?
The Bush administration was fond, as a way to incite the Cuban government, to openly meet the the opposition in Cuba when they visited. Can you imagine Ahmadinejad or a high level official in the Iranian government coming to the US to meet with groups that are opposing the government here and who have received money from the Iranian government? What would the press reaction be, what would the politicians and the right wing say, if that happened?
I can't take anyone seriously who refuses to be even moderately objective.
Can't wait to see the movie though. Looks interesting.
Hi Wilber,
I acknowledged below what you are saying... I agree Cuba has eased the repression of targeted groups like homosexuals and those who want to practice religion... this has improved greatly... you also see the emergence of opposition groups but I believe that as soon as someone becomes a viable threat the repression becomes heavy-handed once again...
but you are right... the government isn't executing dissidents like it used to... there is much to be done still.
I also agree with you that Colombia's human rights record is horrible... but this does not mean it justifies the repression of the Cuban people.