Letter to "journalist" Gary Marx - UPDATED

Mr. Marx,

Is it typically a journalist's job to repeat a totalitarian regime's propaganda without any fact checking of his/her own? I was wondering that as I read your piece about Cuba's Museum of the Revolution. Your headline, "Cuba shows that history lies in eyes of beholder" (which I know you don't write, so perhaps you should also forward this message to your headline editor) implies that there is no fundamental truth to any historical events, that it's all a matter of perspective. That's quite a convenient way to hide the sins of the only unelected leader in the Western Hemisphere. You sir, are just as complicit in the Cuban tragedy as your predecessors like Herbert Matthews and Dan Rather. Instead of seeking truth, you choose sides and give aid and comfort to one of the worst human rights abusers of the last 50 years because of a misplaced sense of idealism. You sir, are what Vladimir Lenin is alleged to have described as a "useful idiot" ready to endorse Cuba and its policies.

No worries though, when castro dies the system he set up cannot live on without him. Then real journalists will go to Cuba and be unafraid to report what happened during 47 years of totalitarian rule and expose the shoddy job you and your colleagues did.

Good day,


Henry L. Gomez

--UPDATE--
In response to Alex whose comment can be read in the comments section for this post:

I can't judge Mr. Marx for previous articles he's written because I can't remember any. But that's part of the problem, each article needs to stand on its own. I don't know if he's even handed or not and this article doesn't do anything to convince me that he's objective. Let's deconstruct the article. What's the purpose, what does it really communicate?

The headline, which I admit probably wasn't written by the reporter, makes a statement that depending on which side you are on you believe a different "truth." Well certainly most events can be interpreted differently depending on which side you are on. But certain events or actions are historically true, period. For example we all know that JFK was assasinated. The who and why is somewhat of a mystery and the source of speculation and conjecture. A theory is a theory and a fact is a fact. So what's the Chicago Tribune telling us, that people have different opinions based on their politics and personal circumstances? Is that really newsworthy?

The piece goes on to discuss several historical events and figures through the words of the tour guide at the Museo de la Revolución. The author makes no attempt either confirm or disprove the statements made by the guide. Was Batista a Nazi? Did that US sailor really relieve himself on a statue of Marti? If he did, is that a reflection of relations between the two countries at the time? Is it true that Spain did nothing good?

Mr. Marx is very sly in his approach. He himself doesn't make any remarks that would lead you to believe he's biased but instead quotes the words of others. Like newspapers themselves he decides what to include and what to omit. If he really wanted to prove the point that "History is in the eye of the beholder" then perhaps he could have interviewed some people with a different point of view. Perhaps he could have interviewed Marta Beatriz Roque or asked the government for access to Oscar Elias Biscet who is rotting in prison. Even if he was denied he could have mentioned that fact.

As the reporter, Mr. Marx is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the reader. Since we can't be there he has to put people's statements into context. But Mr. Marx doesn't do that. In the vaccuum of context the reader is left to assume that all Cubans feel the way the tour guide does and the headline reinforces that. Without context we are left to assume that all Americans would feel the way the student who was quoted in the piece feels, if we only we went on this tour and listened to this man.

It's this unchallenged idea that Cubans are, almost to a man, behind fidel and his revolution and hate the United States that many Americans believe. So they are left with only one response "well if they are happy to live in a totalitarian dictatorship then who are we to stop them?"

There's no mention in the article about how central propaganda is to life in Cuba. How the tour guide was indoctrinated throughout his life. How the man can't make his living unless he sticks to the script, especially when talking to a reporter.

I only need to remind our readers that "myself" who is a contributor to therealcuba.com and now has his own site nuestracubalibre.com was just one year ago a tour guide like the man quoted in the piece. I urge everyone to read the letter he sent a couple of tourists he met on the job after he was safely in the U.S. (The Letter is about 2/3 of the way down the page)

To me it's obvious that Mr. Marx either sympathizes with the official Cuban government view of not only history but current policy or that he cannot present a more balanced view because of the implicit threat of expulsion from the country. Either way, no article, would have been better than this article.