Press freedom in Cuba

The story of Bernardo Arévalo Padrón is an excellent example of the plight many Cuban journalists are forced to endure for the sake of spreading information. Padrón, an independent journalist for opposition publication El Cubano Libre, de Hoy, was arrested in September as a result of his reporting. He was subsequently threatened with four years in jail or forced exile.

In the article linked above, Camille Soulier, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Americas desk, comments on the ultimatum: “Exile or prison, that’s freedom of information in Cuba today.”

Padrón was a political prisoner from 1997 to 2003 after allegedly insulting Fidel Castro. Freedom House names stories of even more journalists who have faced similar pressure from the government. Calixto Martínez Arias was detained for seven months after his reporting on the cholera and dengue epidemics were published without ever being officially charged or tried. José Antonio Torres was detained after writing about a mismanaged construction project and was given a 14 year prison sentence. Blogger Ángel Santiesteban Prats is currently serving a five year sentence for assault and trespassing, charges he says were fabricated.

This article on Pen International discusses some of these cases, calling on the Cuban government to publicize the details of these trials (very often believed to be rigged/mishandled) and to separate their journalistic work from their sentences.

6,805 politically motivated arrests have been made in Cuba since the beginning of 2014. Out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders’ 2014 World Press Freedom Index, Cuba ranks 170. Although Freedom House reports that the country may slowly be opening to the media, it still received a 90/100 for Press Freedom Score (100 being the worst) and is officially considered not free.

As of October 2012, Cuban citizens no longer have to obtain an exit visa before leaving the country, though the government can still withhold passports necessary for traveling for frivolous reasons. Freedom Press explained that because relatively fewer high-profile events have been occurring in Cuba, there is less reason to impose sanctions. However, two specific examples suggest the opposite.

When Pope Benedict XVI visited the island in 2012, it was made very clear that everyone be on their best behavior, or else. The visit was mostly covered by official sources. The Ladies in White, an all-female government opposition group who continues to campaign for the release of jailed dissidents, were prevented from attending the Pope’s mass at any close proximity. And during the funeral of political dissident Oswaldo Payá (thought to have been killed in a purposeful car accident orchestrated by the government), homes of fellow dissidents were highly guarded in order to keep them inside and out of trouble; the service itself was attended by government forces to ensure no sympathetic forces could make their voices heard.

 

Has the situation changed markedly in recent years, and if so, why?

In the era of post-9/11 paranoia, journalists are facing more obstacles than ever before.

Common discourse today about the field of journalism and those who adamantly support freedom of the press have cited the Obama administration as the biggest obstacle of press freedom (and one of the most restrictive administrations in history, in terms of press freedom). At a conference at the New York Times Center last March, national security journalists and government representatives discussed the issue.

An article on Gawker highlights the main points of the conference. Most notably, the Obama administration’s intense pursuit of leakers is causing a sort of source drought, which is a huge blow to investigative journalists. Both journalists and government lawmakers on the panel agreed that a real system for handling internal whistleblowers is necessary. The author also called the debate as a whole “a struggle for institutional power” that, as of now, the NSA has won.

Clearly, the freedom of journalists is dwindling. The War on Terror has made national security an especially sensitive topic, which is to be expected. However, the presidential administration’s handlings of these issues clearly leaves much to be desired. In light of the consequences faced by James Risen, in particular, the kinds of pressures faced by journalists to “stay within the bubble” are very visible. He told Jon Stewart in the interview we watched in class, “The government has been after me ever since for that book.” That book being Pay Any Price, an account of the abuses of power carried out by the government ever since the war began.

 

 

For more, see this interview with Bart Gellman that covers several of the topics we’ve discussed recently.

The War on Terror and Guantanamo Bay

The notorious Guantanamo Bay prison has been historically used to detain particularly threatening persons involved in the War on Terror, many of whom are allegedly linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Located on the far southeastern end of the island, Guantanamo Bay is rather distant both physically and legally from the United States. It was declared as outside US jurisdiction in 2002, just before the first group of War on Terror detainees were imprisoned there.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Guantanamo was the Bush administration’s claim that detainees could not be covered by the US constitution because they were not being kept on US soil. Prisoners are considered enemy combatants, and thus can be “denied some legal protections”, according to a rather helpful Fast Facts article  on CNN. Guantanamo Bay is exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions, which mandates standards for humanitarian treatment of war prisoners. Throughout the War on Terror, several stories have circulated about the torturous conditions prisoners must face. Obama signed an executive order in 2009 to shut down the base, but severe problems with relocating the prisoners will most likely make this impossible. He has also been quoted by The Economist saying the base, “likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

In 2001, Wikileaks released hundred of classified documents related to the inmates, showing questionable protocol for detainment that often involved sketchy or little evidence of terrorist activity. The Economist also published a piece condemning the prison, from its operation to its very existence. Amnesty International, the UN, and the EU have called for its closing in 2005 and 2006.

source: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21577065-prison-deeply-un-american-disgrace-it-needs-be-closed-rapidly-enough-make-you-gag

 

 

 

Cablegate disclosure

In February 2010, two individual but similar references appeared on Cablegate, explaining how political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo had recently passed away after a hunger strike that lasted over 80 days. The first explained that reactions on the island had been rather quiet since his death just a day ago, and that supporters had been detained or placed under house arrest. Several dissidents were threatened with arrest should they attempt to attend the funeral. The second, released after Tamayo’s burial, explained that a “status quo” had returned: there were no public demonstrations, and detainees were released. However, the funeral ceremony was “tense” as police presence was heavy and the homes of known dissidents were under constant surveillance throughout.

Cuba has a history of unjust imprisonments and hunger strikes that haven been covered by the international media–mostly the US (naturally, the strict state does not want such coverage running on their own soil). In 1972, Pedro Luis Boitel, an active opponent of the Batista and Castro governments, died of starvation in prison after failing to be released once his ten year sentence was up and engaging in a subsequent hunger strike. More recently, Alan Gross, an American contractor who was arrested in Cuba and accused of smuggling illegal communications material into the country, went on an eight-day hunger strike in protest of his imprisonment. Dissident Guillermo Farinas, though not currently imprisoned, has carried out twenty three hunger strikes throughout his lifetime to protest the regime.

Beyonce in Cuba

source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/the-royal-couple-is-spending-their-anniversary-in-cuba

In April 2013, celebrity power couple Beyonce and Jay Z went on a rather controversial vacation in Cuba. Most criticism did not actually begin to surface until after the trip, when members of congress requested documents recording what kinds of activities the couple actually engaged in while there. Because of the embargo, traveling to Cuba is only permitted under a specific license, and legality of tourist activities is highly limited. In response to a letter by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart last April–which requested information regarding the license they were given to travel and who approved it–a report by the Treasury Department was released in August deeming the trip legal once and for all.

In a comparison of coverage by traditional vs. non-traditional media, I found that format is the biggest difference, whereas writing style and type of information is rather similar. One article on CNN about how the trip was officially declared legal explains why the criticism began and how the trip was actually correctly licensed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. In another video report on CNN, one journalist discussed the differences in reception by locals and the US government: as demonstrated by the video, fans were thrilled with the visit whereas some US lawmakers complained that the trip was being used as propaganda by Castro’s government. Finally, one longer special piece talks about how the embargo is really the cause of the drama. These pieces, specifically the last one mentioned, provide lots of background and context to the story, alluding to the embargo and providing a brief explanation of it at the very least.

Buzzfeed took a less formal approach to the story in general, but still provided useful information. One list/article highlighted important points from Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart’s letter with detail I did not find in other formats, and provided a link to the whole letter. While explanations of these representatives demands was summarized and explained by CNN, it was also useful to have access to the entire document. Another short piece on Buzzfeed highlights arguments made by the Office of Foreign Assets Control and Ros-Lehtinen.  Although it did not provide much different information that can be found on other platforms, it could be considered a more digestible version of the controversy, as it is much shorter and uses mostly direct quotes to explain the opinions of individuals. Finally, in a very non-traditional but almost comical and interesting take on the story, Buzzfeed published a link to a song by Jay Z entitled “Open Letter” that talks back to critics of his trip. The article that follows pulls out specific lines of the song and explains how they have to do with the criticism he and Beyonce received concerning their trip.

Social media in Cuba

source: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-stir-unrest

Because internet access is so severely restricted in Cuba, the use of social media has not gained as much popularity as it has in other countries.The most notable social media news actually concerns a platform itself, and not the messages or ideas spread using it. ZunZuneo existed from 2008-2012, and had about 40,000 users by the time it was shut down. Early this past April, the AP revealed that it was actually created by the US with the intention to help build support against Castro’s regime. The idea was to build a subscriber base while passing around non-controversial messages about sports, music, and weather. Then, when enough people were using the service, “operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize ‘smart mobs’…or, as one USAID document put it, ‘renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society’.” ZunZuneo was paid for an run by USAID, but was abruptly discontinued when its contract ran out of money.

Because of such intense internet restriction, citizens are not active on social media. And in fact, neither is the government. Reporters–those official in the eyes of the government or independent–continue to report using more traditional outlets such as print or online newspapers (though online content can be censored). As noted in the past post, only 5% of the population can access open internet. One popular method of getting ideas around is by uploading information to flash drives or DVDs, and then distributing those in person. A few Twitter and Facebook pages have been created calling for the improvement of the country, but these are most often run from outside Cuba.

 

Citizen journalism in Cuba

Though citizen journalism is alive in Cuba, there are significantly more stories about the trials and tribulations of citizen journalists than there are stories from these journalists. Recently, citizen journalist and contributor to the Cuban Network of Community Journalists Juliet Michelena Díaz was detained after taking pictures of a police operation. Her charges were intensified after this article ran on Cubanet, explaining how a dog had been set on a man during an altercation about  debt. More police brutality occurred, and Díaz reported that cell phones of passersby were confiscated so as to avoid exposing the incident.

source: http://www.cubanet.org/noticias/tropas-elites-controlan-rinas-callejeras-con-perros/

The Broadcasing Board of Governors also issued a statement about the unjust beating and detention of citizen journalists Lesbety Guillén, Jose Manuel Guerra, Niurcy Acosta Pacheco, Juan Miguel González Manso, and Acosta Bermúdez. Guillén and Guerra were preparing a video report when they were stopped and attacked by police. The other three were beaten and arrested when trying to visit opposition leader Jorge Luis Garcia. All of these reporters are contributed to Martí Noticias, a US-based news network covering Cuba who’s content is rarely accessible on-air in Cuba. In order to spread their messages, news is generally recorded onto DVDs and then distributed in person.

Cuba’s internet is not so much censored as it is unavailable. According to this article on mashable, only 5% of the population has access to the open internet. Home connections are essentially unheard of, so people are often forced to use expensive internet cafes. And professionals can only gain access at work if approved by the government. Generally, “internet access” means access to a government-controlled Intranet made up of only approved sites.

The tools that are most popular among citizen journalists are actually non-internet tools. Information is often shared by downloading articles onto flash drives and distributing them through communities. People can also build their own antennas or use illegal dial-up connections, but there is a constant fear of discovery by authorities. Sometimes, those with internet access with share their accounts or sell access to others.

 

Response to “Restrepo”

The film we watched today in class was most definitely shocking. In his New York Times interview, Tim Hetherington describes the film as “the kind of film that hasn’t been made before”, which I find to be spot-on. I’d venture to say it has similarities to Hollywood war movies/movies made based on real-life wars, but for me, what took my breath away was that we were seeing real time footage that had simply been edited together. The series of testimonials from the soldiers and their often-speechless reactions combined with powerful shots of the reality of war was an incredible way to send a message. The images from the New York Times article are a great supplement and allowed me to process the message more slowly and with slightly less fear, but without seeing the film I don’t think I’d find them quite as heart stopping. The Vanity Fair article is great because it breaks down the action that can feel so chaotic in film– even though you know something bad is going on, the written form of the story makes everything more understandable the story beat by beat.

I generally hold the belief that overdramatized journalistic pieces tarnish the reality of whatever they’re covering. However, in this case, the war in question is in fact shocking, dramatic, etc. In the most dangerous part of the world (literally), a film that simply shows what goes on on a day-to-day basis is the best way to convey the reality of conflict, and the reality of conflict is very intense. I think “Restrepo”, though scary to watch, does an amazing job of explaining to audiences what the war was really like.

Reporting and showing death

In my opinion, reporting on death is often necessary when reporting on larger worldwide issues and events. Showing death, however, is a different story. For example, a report on the death of a solider (from any country) does not offer any more useful information by including a graphic image or a foreboding image of a coffin. Since the media industry is the primary regulator of information–including information on death–it is largely the responsibility of the media to report on such sensitive subjects with caution. Through my perusing of Cuban media sources, it seems that the topic of death doesn’t get much coverage, except specific cases in which the government is blamed for somehow causing the wrongful suffering or death of a small group or an individual (usually a political dissident). Featured material depends on the source (government sanctioned vs. independent), but generally the majority of Cuban headlines do not draw as much attention to the topic of death as many American news sources. A variety of topics pepper government media outlets, while the issue of government oppression seems to take precedence with independent sources..

Blogger Yoani Sanchez hardly ever mentions death and does not include any kind of disturbing images with her blog posts. Recently, the closest she came to reporting on death in Cuba was in a post at the end of August, in which she wrote about how her country’s government explained the introduction of dengue fever into Cuba. Obviously the disease affected many lives when an epidemic hit in 1981, and she’s not convinced its been entirely eradicated. However, instead of focusing on the lives the disease took, she focuses on how it was presented as foreign enemy by her government, how “the disease had been introduced by ‘Yankee imperialism.’” A slightly older post references “el Maleconazo“, an uprising that occurred in 1994 as a result of the continued repressive government policies that was quickly shut down (and now is rarely addressed). This post indirectly references the deaths of so many Cubans who tried to escape their country and its restrictive policies illegally. This post (by a different blogger, but provided by the same blog translator platform) goes more in depth about the deadly crossings, and how “They certainly would not have occurred if the Cuban government would provide us with legal mechanisms to travel freely abroad…”. Finally, an article published by Granma (the official communist news outlet) in September reported on the deadliness of gangrene, but it was more of a science article that explained the causes, symptoms, and treatments for the disease–quite different from the “scare articles” we’ve been seeing about Ebola in the news lately.

Meghan Dhaliwal and Tom Hundley

Two reporters from the Pulitzer Center talked to us today about their work, the center’s mission, and what it really means to be embedded with military forces. Tom Hundley started out his story describing his work covering the first Gulf War after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. At the time, he was the bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune in Jerusalem, so he went to Saudi Arabia to cover the conflict. Unfortunately, the military was really only interested in getting positive coverage in light of media critique of the previous war in Vietnam, so he opted out of embedding and took advantage of his rare Saudi visa to cover other things that were happening at the time. As Hundley put it, the country was “discombobulated because Saddam was on their doorstep”, and the influx of Americans combined with women walking around without a head covering provided him with plenty of material.

Later he spent four years covering the breakup of Serbia and Ugoslavia, and recounted what took place when he and his “group of happy camper reporters” came upon a group of newly arrived American troops. He had already become comfortable in the relatively desolate area, but these troops were hyper-aware of their situation in enemy territory/combat zone. Interestingly, he explained that not carrying a gun of his own in this situation was a form of protection. “The only way to be safe was to be unarmed,” because during this war, anybody seen carrying a weapon was considered an enemy that could be shot at.

Another instance in which personal protection came into play was during the six months he spend in Baghdad after opening a bureau there once it had been secured by the US. Armed guards were stationed outside the bureau, and he and his office manager decided that one could be kept inside that only the two of them would know about, just in case of an emergency situation.

Meghan Dhaliwal entered the conversation after David Turnely’s award winning photo from the first Gulf War was mentioned (see below). As a photojournalist, she explained how, although there was conflict surrounding the taking of this picture as an invasion of an intimate moment, subjects being photographed like this “have much bigger things to worry about.” Furthermore, Turnely had been embedded for a significant amount of time at this point and had likely mastered the goal of an embedded photojournalist: to become a fly on the wall.

source: http://www.claudiarocchini.it/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/turnley-1-Medium.jpg

Meghan got her background in journalist from Boston University, and then went to Haiti with a public health student to report on the cholera outbreak thanks to a student grant from the Pulitzer Center. Upon return, she interned at the center for three months until taking over as multimedia projects coordinator. What this really translates to is a desk job, but Meghan had been aching to get back in the field for some time when the opportunity to report in Afghanistan was presented. With only twelve days notice, she was flown to Afghanistan to work with Meg Jones from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  as the photographer for a story focusing on the effort in packing up a war. Meg is a veteran military correspondent, and her knowledge was invaluable to Meghan, who had almost know knowledge of how a military operated. Although her embedding would be very low risk, she still had to “sign her life away”, and was significantly more limited than when she had photographed in Haiti. Fortunately, her public affairs officer was as helpful as he could be– especially considering the fact that as a high-ranking captain, his constant presence with her made it hard for lower-ranking privates or specialists to relax when she was around.

source: http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/asia-afghanistan-wisconsin-national-guard-war

To add to the difficulty, photographing things that weren’t there or that were on their way out was quite challenging. Meghan had to figure out how to show what was going on without being bland, but while still doing the necessary reporting. At times, this mandated starting her day at 4 AM when the light was still good. She wanted to show what life was like, not just life in a construction site, because construction sites are generally the same around the world.

In terms of censorship, it was assumed that her PA would stop her from photographing anything off limits, but this assumption proved faulty when she was addressed by three troops who had flown from a different part of Afghanistan, just to tell her in person that a photo she took for the Sentinel was against military protocol. In her PA’s presence, she had asked four troops to remove their helmets and sunglasses for a photo, and only later was told this wasn’t allowed. “I didn’t stop myself from taking pictures,” she said.  ‘I wanted to show what was going on and how these people were living and how they were taking down the infrastructure used to fight a war for the last 13 years.”