Clash of Civilizations
The Miami Herald thinks it's corrupt to
undermine Castro's censorship.
By Carlos Alberto Montaner
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:00 a.m. EDT
The clash of civilizations began this way. On Sept. 8, the Miami Herald (TMH)
and El Nuevo Herald (ENH), both of the McClatchy newspaper chain, published
on Page One a sensationalist report, clumsily researched, under a headline
that read, in type befitting a major event, "10 Miami Journalists Take U.S.
Pay." The initiative for the report had come from TMH; ENH was obliged to
publish it, grudgingly. From the way in which the story was presented, it
appeared that a great font of corruption had been unearthed, but in reality
nothing criminal had happened. All the article said was that journalists of
Cuban origin also contributed to Radio and TV Martí, an official U.S.
broadcast station similar to Radio Free Europe, governed by the ethical
standards of Voice of America, and transmitting to Cuba. Naturally, the
journalists accepted for their work the fees (generally low) that the
government routinely pays.
Miami's Cuban community was indignant. What was bad about trying to
undermine Cuba's censorship? For the Cuban journalists, that was a civic
duty. TMH has editorialized in support of Radio and TV Martí. Wasn't it
logical that the good Cuban journalists said to Cuba, via Radio Martí, the
same things they said in Miami via the McClatchy chain? To add insult to
injury, the company fired three reporters on ENH's staff, claiming there
might be a conflict of interests if they collected honoraria from the
government. Granma, the organ of the Communist Party of Cuba, reported that
those who criticized the Cuban government were bought by money from
Washington. TMH did more damage in one day to Cuban writers in the
democratic opposition than Granma has done in 40 years.
A few days later, ENH reported that hundreds of U.S. journalists have
appeared on VOA and received the usual modest $100 per program. To
contribute to VOA, PBS or public radio, and to charge for it, doesn't
compromise their objectivity. Why a different standard for Cuban writers?
TMH did not reprint ENH's report; 1,200 readers cancelled their
subscriptions and it became evident that the two newspapers were taking
opposing stances. For the "Anglo" journalists, their Cuban colleagues had
conflicts. In contrast, the journalists at ENH felt their corporate brothers
had ambushed them. To Miami's Cuban-Americans, this was a display of double-standards.
This clash also allows us to reflect on "conflicts of interest." To think
that just because a journalist participates in a VOA program and receives
$100 he will sell his conscience to the government is to have a terrible
opinion of journalists. To think that readers, if they find out, will
repudiate the medium where these journalists work, is to have a terrible
opinion of readers. Professors at public universities get paid by the
government; yet they don't submit to their paymaster for that reason.
Because the law enshrines the presumption of innocence, U.S. society is
characterized by a presumption of decency. Life is a continuous conflict of
interest and one must presume that people--even Cuban journalists--act in
accordance with reasonable principles and standards.
So what can McClatchy do now? Something very simple: Apologize publicly
for the defamatory report and readmit the expelled journalists.
Enero 8, 2006
Imprimir
esta página
