Freedom of the Press ??
Hey Folks,
This (news item below) sounds bad to our ears, but let's think about a few things.
First of all, we don't have freedom of the press here - by any objective measure. If you don't believe that now, you probably never will. But if you have an open mind, take a look at the news or read some books by insiders. What you'll find is that almost nothing on the real left makes the news (for a lot of reasons you can find by reading on the subject).
Even without reading you can see so much by looking (bless Yogi Berra). Look at the media and see who is labeled as a lefty: Kennedy, Clinton, and a whole bunch of democrats, to name a few. In some places - like Ohio - even Republicans are labeled as lefties (Sen. George Voinovich for one). But these folks aren't lefties at all!! They're centrists, and the right calls them lefties to demonize the true left (and the Democrats are perfectly fine with that; they oppose the left themselves).
If you take the time to investigate, you'll find that Tricky Dickey Nixon (Republican) was farther left than Bill Clinton. And the right, who call for building a Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, calls the Democrats leftist because they think that this particular "solution to the immigration problem" is a bit inhumane and counterproductive.
Well, the actual left would suggest that there should be no borders at all; that borders are arbitrary lines, and that people should be able to move freely wherever they want on the earth.
When have you ever heard anything like that in our "Free Press"? You haven't. But - objectively - the opposite end of the "build a wall" spectrum is clearly "let people go wherever they want." That's the left on this issue.
Now multiply that a million times, and you'll have some idea why I don't believe we have freedom of the press (and that's just a small piece of the total argument).
Having said all that, you should understand (whether or not you agree with it) why I find it hypocritical to judge others' "Press Freedom." Does anybody have press freedom? I don't think so.
In regard to Cuba's limitations on the web, Marshal McLuhan's statement, "The medium is the message," is instructive.
I believe that the "prime directive" of any culture is to maintain itself as it presently is, with all its disparities, contradictions, prerogatives, etc. - without regard to anything else. All must give way to maintain, solidify, or enhance the situation of those who benefit from the social system. The media are a primary tool of this directive. As suggested by McLuhan, the very nature of each system's media (including the manipulation of it), reflects, supports, and promulgates the "necessary myths" for that system's continuation.
That explains why there are certain things we never hear in our own media. It explains why there are things the Cuban government doesn't want its population to hear. Both systems are working in conjunction with the "prime directive.
Now, determining whether that is good or bad goes beyond the simple name-calling of "censorship," "spin," "propaganda," and such. All societies have similar practices: in the South the Civil War is called "The War of Northern Aggression." Japan still claims they committed no atrocities during WW II. Turkey is still in denial over its treatment of Armenians. Anglicans feel godly even though their sect was founded by a man who tortured his enemies and cut off his wife's head.
Whether the manipulation we impose on our media or that imposed on Cuban media or that which is imposed by every country on its media is bad or good is a judgment call based on what that manipulation accomplishes (of course, if one supports the prime directive, all censorship and media manipulation promulgated by the national authority is good. It can only be bad in the minds of people who are critical of their nation – you know: the people who “hate America” or “hate Cuba” or “hate your country’s name here”).
So, having said all that, what should we think about Cuba? Well, I guess that depends on which form of control one favors – capitalist or socialist (Cuba is NOT a communist country - any more than is Russia or China).
In this country we focus on making money and mesmerizing the masses with consumerism; corporations and consumer spending and profit are more important than people; hence our form of manipulation (pursuing our prime directive), which includes distracting oppressed folks from the actual cause of their distress.
For example, in one of my recent postings, it was the Alaskan Native Americans who defended our satanic, corporate president who were widely reported on on – NOT those (we were not told how many) who resent him. Nor was the spotlight on how in the name of god (who talks to our satanic president) the government and our oil corporations could so blithely let thes people freeze (objectively, I would say, a much more serious matter than what name our president was called - deservedly OR undeservedly - by Hugo Chavez!!.
In Cuba consumerism, corporations, their profits, and consumer spending to produce profits are the enemy (just as here uppity Eskimos who might “hate America for freezing their asses off are the enemy). Neither country will let their enemy have an effective go at communicating directly, often, and effectively with the masses – such communication undercuts the prime directive.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that a Cuban “dissident” would complain about government restrictions on getting his point of view disseminated. Go talk to an American union or peace organization, or any number of activists groups on the left or the right. After that, you won’t be surprised about media manipulation here or elsewhere, I’ll bet.
Sure, in this country, stuff gets out in little cracks like "The Nation" or "The Progressive," or on the net, but if very many people start reading and learning from such publications, some "problem" will "develop" - as if by magic.
Look at the attack here on the net and the net-based critics of the status quo! Have you noticed? They're talking about putting wealthy, commercial, politically brain-dead entities in the fast lane, and (essentially) shutting nobodies like me down by putting my words on a snail-express delivery system most websters won't suffer through - the perfect solution: those who benefit from the system and have the dough to pay for proper access can continue to push their agenda; the rest of us are fucked. God bless America where we have free speach - if you have the money to pay for it.
So, here's how I see it. Cuba is not perfect nor is it my ideal; but its socialist perspective is more broadly aimed at the vast majority of the people than is our elite-serving, wealth-oriented system.
I'm sure there are excesses and negative aspects in the Cuban approach to controling the media. But, to the extent that Cuba muzzles enemies of a better life for the people, it is vastly preferable to our system - and is such to the extent that the American system of censorship muzzles the advocates of the people to protect the prerogatives of the wealthy minority.
THAT's the basis for making your judgment call regarding the story below.
-Uke Man
Media watchdog criticises Cuba for controlling Web
Thu Oct 19
PARIS (Reuters) - A press freedom watchdog accused Cuba on Thursday of trying to prevent people from reading independent media, saying less than 2 percent of Cubans connect to the Web at closely monitored Internet access points.
"In a country where the media are under the government's thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority," Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in a report on Cuba.
Cuba, like China, controls access to the Internet. Direct access to the World Wide Web is generally only available to government-approved individuals, though passwords can be purchased on the black market.
"With less than 2 percent of the population online, Cuba is one of the world's most backward countries as regards Internet usage," RSF said.
"This is quite surprising in a country that boasts one of the highest levels of education in the world," it added.
Internet access points such as the 'Correos de Cuba' Internet cafes were closely monitored, RSF said, and messages seemed to be scanned for suspect keywords, such as those linked to dissidents, which trigger the shutdown of programmes.
Because of the cost, most Cubans opt for the cheaper 'national' connection, which includes government-operated email but not full Internet access, which costs 4 euros ($5.03) an hour, about a third of the average monthly wage, it said.
The Cuban government says Internet access is restricted due to limited bandwidth available. Havana blames U.S. economic sanctions that bar Cuba from hooking up to submarine fiber optic cables and force the country to use costly satellite communications for Internet traffic.
"This may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban Internet and the endless lines outside Internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities," RSF said.
A Cuban dissident, Guillermo Farinas, went on a seven-month hunger strike this year to demand unfettered Internet access, but stopped after fellow dissidents persuaded him to give up.
This (news item below) sounds bad to our ears, but let's think about a few things.
First of all, we don't have freedom of the press here - by any objective measure. If you don't believe that now, you probably never will. But if you have an open mind, take a look at the news or read some books by insiders. What you'll find is that almost nothing on the real left makes the news (for a lot of reasons you can find by reading on the subject).
Even without reading you can see so much by looking (bless Yogi Berra). Look at the media and see who is labeled as a lefty: Kennedy, Clinton, and a whole bunch of democrats, to name a few. In some places - like Ohio - even Republicans are labeled as lefties (Sen. George Voinovich for one). But these folks aren't lefties at all!! They're centrists, and the right calls them lefties to demonize the true left (and the Democrats are perfectly fine with that; they oppose the left themselves).
If you take the time to investigate, you'll find that Tricky Dickey Nixon (Republican) was farther left than Bill Clinton. And the right, who call for building a Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, calls the Democrats leftist because they think that this particular "solution to the immigration problem" is a bit inhumane and counterproductive.
Well, the actual left would suggest that there should be no borders at all; that borders are arbitrary lines, and that people should be able to move freely wherever they want on the earth.
When have you ever heard anything like that in our "Free Press"? You haven't. But - objectively - the opposite end of the "build a wall" spectrum is clearly "let people go wherever they want." That's the left on this issue.
Now multiply that a million times, and you'll have some idea why I don't believe we have freedom of the press (and that's just a small piece of the total argument).
Having said all that, you should understand (whether or not you agree with it) why I find it hypocritical to judge others' "Press Freedom." Does anybody have press freedom? I don't think so.
In regard to Cuba's limitations on the web, Marshal McLuhan's statement, "The medium is the message," is instructive.
I believe that the "prime directive" of any culture is to maintain itself as it presently is, with all its disparities, contradictions, prerogatives, etc. - without regard to anything else. All must give way to maintain, solidify, or enhance the situation of those who benefit from the social system. The media are a primary tool of this directive. As suggested by McLuhan, the very nature of each system's media (including the manipulation of it), reflects, supports, and promulgates the "necessary myths" for that system's continuation.
That explains why there are certain things we never hear in our own media. It explains why there are things the Cuban government doesn't want its population to hear. Both systems are working in conjunction with the "prime directive.
Now, determining whether that is good or bad goes beyond the simple name-calling of "censorship," "spin," "propaganda," and such. All societies have similar practices: in the South the Civil War is called "The War of Northern Aggression." Japan still claims they committed no atrocities during WW II. Turkey is still in denial over its treatment of Armenians. Anglicans feel godly even though their sect was founded by a man who tortured his enemies and cut off his wife's head.
Whether the manipulation we impose on our media or that imposed on Cuban media or that which is imposed by every country on its media is bad or good is a judgment call based on what that manipulation accomplishes (of course, if one supports the prime directive, all censorship and media manipulation promulgated by the national authority is good. It can only be bad in the minds of people who are critical of their nation – you know: the people who “hate America” or “hate Cuba” or “hate your country’s name here”).
So, having said all that, what should we think about Cuba? Well, I guess that depends on which form of control one favors – capitalist or socialist (Cuba is NOT a communist country - any more than is Russia or China).
In this country we focus on making money and mesmerizing the masses with consumerism; corporations and consumer spending and profit are more important than people; hence our form of manipulation (pursuing our prime directive), which includes distracting oppressed folks from the actual cause of their distress.
For example, in one of my recent postings, it was the Alaskan Native Americans who defended our satanic, corporate president who were widely reported on on – NOT those (we were not told how many) who resent him. Nor was the spotlight on how in the name of god (who talks to our satanic president) the government and our oil corporations could so blithely let thes people freeze (objectively, I would say, a much more serious matter than what name our president was called - deservedly OR undeservedly - by Hugo Chavez!!.
In Cuba consumerism, corporations, their profits, and consumer spending to produce profits are the enemy (just as here uppity Eskimos who might “hate America for freezing their asses off are the enemy). Neither country will let their enemy have an effective go at communicating directly, often, and effectively with the masses – such communication undercuts the prime directive.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that a Cuban “dissident” would complain about government restrictions on getting his point of view disseminated. Go talk to an American union or peace organization, or any number of activists groups on the left or the right. After that, you won’t be surprised about media manipulation here or elsewhere, I’ll bet.
Sure, in this country, stuff gets out in little cracks like "The Nation" or "The Progressive," or on the net, but if very many people start reading and learning from such publications, some "problem" will "develop" - as if by magic.
Look at the attack here on the net and the net-based critics of the status quo! Have you noticed? They're talking about putting wealthy, commercial, politically brain-dead entities in the fast lane, and (essentially) shutting nobodies like me down by putting my words on a snail-express delivery system most websters won't suffer through - the perfect solution: those who benefit from the system and have the dough to pay for proper access can continue to push their agenda; the rest of us are fucked. God bless America where we have free speach - if you have the money to pay for it.
So, here's how I see it. Cuba is not perfect nor is it my ideal; but its socialist perspective is more broadly aimed at the vast majority of the people than is our elite-serving, wealth-oriented system.
I'm sure there are excesses and negative aspects in the Cuban approach to controling the media. But, to the extent that Cuba muzzles enemies of a better life for the people, it is vastly preferable to our system - and is such to the extent that the American system of censorship muzzles the advocates of the people to protect the prerogatives of the wealthy minority.
THAT's the basis for making your judgment call regarding the story below.
-Uke Man
Media watchdog criticises Cuba for controlling Web
Thu Oct 19
PARIS (Reuters) - A press freedom watchdog accused Cuba on Thursday of trying to prevent people from reading independent media, saying less than 2 percent of Cubans connect to the Web at closely monitored Internet access points.
"In a country where the media are under the government's thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority," Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in a report on Cuba.
Cuba, like China, controls access to the Internet. Direct access to the World Wide Web is generally only available to government-approved individuals, though passwords can be purchased on the black market.
"With less than 2 percent of the population online, Cuba is one of the world's most backward countries as regards Internet usage," RSF said.
"This is quite surprising in a country that boasts one of the highest levels of education in the world," it added.
Internet access points such as the 'Correos de Cuba' Internet cafes were closely monitored, RSF said, and messages seemed to be scanned for suspect keywords, such as those linked to dissidents, which trigger the shutdown of programmes.
Because of the cost, most Cubans opt for the cheaper 'national' connection, which includes government-operated email but not full Internet access, which costs 4 euros ($5.03) an hour, about a third of the average monthly wage, it said.
The Cuban government says Internet access is restricted due to limited bandwidth available. Havana blames U.S. economic sanctions that bar Cuba from hooking up to submarine fiber optic cables and force the country to use costly satellite communications for Internet traffic.
"This may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban Internet and the endless lines outside Internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities," RSF said.
A Cuban dissident, Guillermo Farinas, went on a seven-month hunger strike this year to demand unfettered Internet access, but stopped after fellow dissidents persuaded him to give up.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home