Whenever I can, I read Fernando Ravsberg, BBC correspondent in Cuba. I can agree with him or not, but I prefer a range of opinions rather than the bi-color and mono-chord Granma (where the bi-color is not just for graphic design.)
His work this last week left me with a bad taste. Not because the story he relates isn’t real, on the contrary, cases such as this will increase if the anti-corruption crusade continues. With economy, Ravsberg portrays a cunning character who learned to bend things to his own advantage while chanting slogans or applauding political acts. A person of the age of those formed in the values of the “New Man.”
With a chameleon-like ability, the anonymous interviewee — and there I felt butterflies in my stomach — forgetting his immediate past, says he will join the dissent and “the human rights” to seek visibility his case.
No need to imagine what is said about the dissidence and Human Rights groups in the study circles of the party nucleus, it’s enough to read the national press; we already know that it’s a requisite to be a bad person, to be paid by the CIA (or the U.S. Interest Section, it’s the same thing), an annexationist, an instrument of the media conglomerates, whatever.
Like the anonymous interviewee is stuck on the idea that every foreign correspondent is there to speak ill of the government; stuck on the idea that “a career” in the dissidence if the natural step for anyone ousted as a way to evade their responsibility before justice.
With regards to the preoccupation with a certain paradox which is referred to, I leave it to the ethics of the journalist to untangle and publish the truth about whatever case, potential or pass, beyond the official statements or the alternative information. It will always be gain for the country.
March 19 2012