El País, Independent Media and USAID

Everything seems to indicate that the collapse of the subversive entity known as USAID still has a lot to do. Now the newspaper El País, a well-known Spanish media, took it upon itself to raise its concerns about the matter, and whether this will affect the press it calls independent.

The article goes into detail about how the 90-day budget suspension, and eventually definitively, has left several Latin American platforms or media without resources, some of which are part of what they call “the ecosystem of the independent Cuban press.”

Among the group of victims of the super minister Elon Musk, there are some “Cuban” media well known in these parts, for example, one specialized in financial speculation and attacks on the Cuban peso. The director of this digital pamphlet confesses that without the support of USAID they will lose at least 50% of their income; other affected publications refuse to disclose the losses, but have already begun to ask for voluntary contributions, under the pretext of stopping their activity.

In the argument of the aforementioned Spanish media, the word independent predominates in the narrative approach, as a vital argument to justify the need to keep USAID's coffers open.

It does not require much analysis to appreciate a clear contradiction. On the one hand, they say that the media is independent and on the other, they demand that they receive money, to be more exact, that they live at the expense of the federal resources of the United States. What journalistic objectivity can be expected in these cases?

It’s known, the American governments have been by far the most hostile to the Cuban nation. It would take up a lot of space to recall this disastrous reality, but the expansionist desires over Cuba, to fall with that extra force, the Apostle would say, are revealed early on in Manifest Destiny, in the Monroe Doctrine, in the Platt Amendment, in the forced installation of what some historians call the first neocolony to exist, starting with the kidnapping of Cuban independence.

The US aggression against the Cuban family multiplied tenfold, starting in 1959: economic war via the blockade, financing of a military aggression, threat of nuclear destruction, state terrorism from the United States and a long etcetera, including various, numerous subversive operations that continue to this day seeking a change of “regime”.

In other words, no one can sincerely claim that the money coming from the US government is “neutral”, or that it does not seek to guarantee its spurious interests.

Anti-Cuban lines of messages, born in the Washington Capitol, or in the White House, where lies and pretexts to justify permanent aggression predominate, are quickly reproduced by the “independent Cuban” press, sometimes being more papist than the Pope, that is, more aggressive, more hateful, going so far as to demand military aggression.

In a totally biased, permanent, and usually unconcealed way, these “independent” media coincide with the State Department in the approach to other international issues, besides Cuba; it's seen in the scandalous silence in the face of the massacre of the Zionists in Gaza, in Russophobia, or in Sinophobia, to cite just three recent examples.

A single criticism of the countless violations of human rights in the United States, never! It is not their business, they would respond. Nor of the criminal blockade, despite the fact that the rejection of this policy is a consensus issue in the world, as shown by the record of support for Cuba in the UN General Assembly year after year.

Another thorny issue has to do with the practical utility of these platforms, mentioned here. It would be interesting for auditors who search through USAID's archives to establish how many people access these media.

It's known, for example, that the topics most searched for by Spanish-speaking Internet users in the world, which of course includes Cubans, are concentrated on entertainment pages such as movies, music, sports and others; there’s little or very little interest in politics. So, why spend huge financial resources on something that no one or almost no one consumes?

Added to the above is the permanent loss of credibility, given by the editorial line of these platforms where lies and manipulation predominate, generally easy to disprove, as well as the logical limitations that come with writing about one country while residing in another; this causes a systemic disconnection between the "independent" editors and the target audience, supposedly the Cubans who reside on the island.

Certainly, the ideological, political, and financial subordination of the “independent Cuban” media to the US government is so obvious, in addition to its dubious usefulness, that it really would render unnecessary these clarifications, but the eagerness of the Spanish media to defend something based on predetermined political premises simply offends the intelligence of others.

But El País should not be blamed too much. The ideological confusion also comes from the US authorities themselves, who accuse those who have received USAID funding of being “radical left”. In other words, are the counterrevolutionary platforms also “radical left”? What madness.

El País should also reconsider whether it’s ethically correct, whether it’s morally acceptable to naturalize this type of practice according to which a government hostile to Cuba can easily support and direct, through mercenary front men, a so-called “independent” media, to impose its particular and imperial narrative.

In short, they are not independent, they do not defend the legitimate rights of Cubans to have a prosperous and peaceful society, they cannot support the sublime idea of national sovereignty. The euphoria of making public the dealings of USAID and other media, for whatever reasons those in charge in Washington now have, brings to light the unpresentable.

This story goes on and as we know, USAID may or may not disappear, and the Empire will resort to new aggressive options; the “independent” journalists may have to look for another job, although perhaps not. Ultimately, it should not be ruled out that Mr. Rubio, the new head of what remains of the Agency, will look for some money so that someone from the “independent civil society” of Cuba can do the dirty work for them in the digital realm.

In any case, the real truth is that the lie about the “independence” of this press was laid bare, no one can cover it up, not even the generous cover of El País.

Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff