What does it say about the BBC that they have published a string of articles and photos in recognition of Fidel Castro’s 80th birthday, as well as a number of articles enquiring solicitously about his health? (I’ll be out by 100′ says Castro; Castro ‘will be back in weeks’ )
For one thing, it shows a naked admiration of power for its own sake. This article makes clear what is remarkable about Castro: “President Castro has outlasted no fewer than nine American presidents during his 47-year rule”
Ah, but BBC, this is not an achievement, it’s an indictment (as well as a compliment to the planned stable succession of US democracy).
According to Paul Reynolds, “He has cut a giant figure on the world stage during the 47 years he has controlled Cuba”
That’s right, all the world’s a stage etc. (much as I respect Paul Reynolds, I must say this is a duff note to strike, and that giving Castro a 50% rating in the balance of history will not do and is not objective). Why does the BBC need two articles, both venerating the dictator- one describing him as ‘the great survivor’, the other as a ‘world icon’?
Surely this is a root bias at the Beeb- for them the ideals of communism are rather romantic, the struggle of the Cold War the stuff of legend. For me, however, the Cold War is the great tragedy and its inciters great criminals.
If one cannot see that Castro is a bully with nothing to recommend him (if I don’t view him thus, I betray his many victims without a profile for history to view), how can one see objectively the more vibrant tyrants of today, ideologist heirs such as Chavez, Kim Jung Il and, more urgently, Ahmadinejad?
Answer: one can’t.
Perhaps the BBC would argue that there is nothing wrong in seeing good in Castro, where it exists. They repeatedly point to healthcare as his great achievement. I have heard otherwise, however (and, being objective, could one not suppose that a Cuba without the canker of communism and with a vibrant 21st century relationship with the USA would do much better for its people?).
From the blog I just linked, an apt quote with which to finish which shows how the BBC is even ahead of the liberal press pack around the world:
“Contrary to the media’s puerile awe at the 79-year-old Castro’s significance — he’s often reverently called “the longest-serving” Latin American ruler or “maverick leader” — he is one of the world’s most brutal, ruthless tyrants. And with popular democracy blossoming all over the world, pretending that Cuba’s an exception and Cuba’s people have no desire for freedom isn’t credible.”
At the BBC, not longest-serving or maverick, but “the great survivor” and a “giant figure”. Praise indeed.
See also: Tim Blair on the tyrant trail (via Instapundit)
You dont need to analyse anything about castro. The fact that so many of his subjects are prepared to take desperate, life threatening risks to escape his evil empire is an argument against him that cannot be countered.
The beeb should wake up and smell the coffee. You cannot polish a turd.
I doubt if there’ll be many comments on this post, as contrary to popular BBCleif not many give a damn about Castro however the articles are structured.
Am I wrong, or is no-one really reading them?
Mick in the UK –
I think it’s more instructive to read about the people who write about Castro, than about Castro himself.
Cheers
I’ll make a bet that when the dictator Castro dies, the people partying in Miami will be ignored by Al-Beeb.
i’m pretty ok about Castro. you have to remember that he was a product of the 1950s, and Central America wasnt exactly the land of milk and honey. lots of fascist dictatorships, all backed by the U.S.A.
in that sort of environment, its no wonder that a nationalist like Castro would emerge – and may i add – he IS a nationalist first and foremost, despite the commie credentials.
a pretty shameful episode of American policy, that even the neo-cons dont exactly admire and have admitted that it was a mistake.
Castro is usually described by the BBC as the Cuban ‘leader’ or a ‘president’; Pinochet was the Chilean ‘dictator’.
It is intriguing how many people seem to revere the former but despise the latter. The Western intelligentsia lauds the former’s achievements, but insists that the latter should be tried for crimes against humanity.
It’s a funny old world. They are peas from the same pod, really.
there is a difference taol – Castro came into power via a local revolution.
pinochet was installed via a CIA backed coup.
however both are/were dictators – so , i cant quite get my head around why the chatterati guardianista beeboids cant call Castro a dictator – it is self evident that he really is one.
if castro had seized power and been a dictator for say 10 years, and then moved his country to democracy, then ok, i’d give him the benefit of the doubt.
but to hang on to power to the age he is right now?
compare and contrast with King Juan Carlos of Spain, who was given Spain on a platter by Franco – fully expecting that he’d continue the regime. But Carlos decided to go down the democracy route and give his people freedom.
An unsung hero, that Spanish king is.
It is intriguing how many people seem to revere the former but despise the latter.
TAoL Reincarnated | 14.08.06 – 11:29 pm
Pinochet’s mistake was to make Chile prosperous through capitalism. No leftie will ever forgive him for that.
“there is a difference taol – Castro came into power via a local revolution.”
So what? Lenin came to power via a “local revolution” but that doesn’t alter the fact that he was evil slime. The USA’s ruthless, pragmatic blundering in the Cold War doesn’t excuse Castro his crimes.
“i’m pretty ok about Castro.”
Only someone who didn’t stop being a leftie until long after Sept 11th 2001 could be “pretty ok about Castro”. Sheesh.
.
Best of the Web (scroll down to “BBC Phone Home”) points out a little slip in the BBC’s Castro coverage.
The puff piece is the Reynolds one.
On Radio 4 8:00 News this morning (which lasted about 10 minutes) nearly 2 minutes was devoted to “our Fidel” sitting up in bed talking to “our Hugo” Chavez: this from a BBC reporter stationed in/sent to Havana apparently to report on Castro’s health. Frankly, who needs the detail? If this “news” must be reported a 5 second piece to say that Castro was continuing to recover from his op was quite sufficient.
“The world’s longest-serving leader? Castro seized power in January 1959, which certainly puts him at the top of the list. But we can think of one head of state who’s been in office since 1952, and it’s one the BBC should have heard of: Queen Elizabeth II.”
The BBC just so predictable in its bias.
I guarantee you this.
When evil dicatator Castro finally kicks the bucket and goes to commie hell…
(also known as a Waiting Room at an NHS Hospital)
… “El Presidente” gets far more praise and sympathy than President Ronald Reagan got on his death.
Here’s three simple questions to put to anybody who goes on about Cuba’s medical system:
1) Would you be willing to give up democracy and freedom for a promise of better health care?
2) If you wouldn’t, why should Cubans be forced to do so?
3) If you would, why do you think it is impossible to have democracy and a good health system?
“You thought Nelson Mandela was a hero? Well you are right. He was and is a hero. One of the greatest heroes who ever lived. But EUSEBIO PEÑALVER just died, and you have no idea who he was. He died in Castro’s prisons. He died for advocating free speech, free press, and free elections.”
via Deans World
http://www.deanesmay.com/
And he was the world’s oldest black prisoner…not Mandela but for some reason the BBC don’t seem to know about him…..
(And he was one of the 20% of the world’s jailed journalists who are in Cuban prisons. 1 in 5 of their colleagues in jail yet the BBC et al never seem to notice this…)
Andrew Zalotocky,
Cubans DO NOT have a good health system. You are seeing the tourist hospitals.
“You thought Nelson Mandela was a hero?”
No, he’s a terrorist whose past actions the MSM have whitewashed.
True. But some people think he is a hero…Gerry Adams must be fed up – all that work getting his IRA thugs into government and no-one offers to get BBC Ground Force in to redo HIS garden!
I have a waking dream that Castro dies and all of the Western World’s leading lefties flock to Havana for his funeral. Whilst they are there the Cuban people rise up, liberate themselves and arrest all of Castro’s supporters, including his foreign allies. We will then have the spectacle of the lefties appealing to the USA etc to be liberated. Oh what joy to be alive then!
You clearly missed the Castro quiz…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4791355.stm
No questions about how many books are banned, how many dissidents are in jail, or how many Cubans have drowned trying to escape his prison island.
Lefties HEART dictators.
EamonOF:
“Whilst they are there the Cuban people rise up, liberate themselves and arrest all of Castro’s supporters, including his foreign allies.”
Well I would hope that the Cubans would immediately drive fifty miles west of havana, and render them to Gitmo for the next ten years.
AntiCitizenOne: I don’t believe that Cuba has a good health system. My point was that people who claim that it does seem to think that this somehow excuses the lack of freedom in Cuba. Hence my question as to whether they would be willing to give up their own freedom for the kind of health care they claim Cuba has.
Cuba has a “great” health system… and of course, Mussolini made the trains run on time.
These tyrants — aren’t they just so lovable?
Incidentally, anyone who believes the official lies/figures on Cuba, really does need their head examining.
Jack, having been to Cuba I think it’s pretty naive to think that there’s a lot of love there for the US either. Some sort of relatively left wing but definitely non-Commie semi-democratic nationalistic interlude is the next step I reckon.
The best thing for Cuba would be for it to become like another Costa Rica
(which abolished its armed forces in 1948).
Unfortunately, too many Cubans work for the military and the state for that option to happen easily.
That date should have read 1948 – the editor turned it into a smiley !
Hey Cockney…,
“I think it’s pretty naive to think that there’s a lot of love there for the US either”
Huh. You’re kidding right mate? Have to disagree with ya there!
Aug 4 2006
“HAVANA (Reuters) – Cubans love most things American. They play baseball with a passion and ride in vintage Dodges and Buicks.
Most Cubans have relatives living in the United States, the product of waves of emigration since Castro seized power in a 1959 revolution and built a one-party communist state 90 miles from Florida.
Hoping to live the American Dream of consumer plenty and a new car, many Cubans apply each day for U.S. visas to escape economic hardship in post-Soviet Cuba.
Hundreds others brave the choppy waters of the Florida Straits in smugglers’ speedboats and precarious craft, even vintage American cars ingeniously crafted into amphibious vehicles. Some drown in the crossing.”
True, many Cubans don’t like the thought of the US “interfering” with their country. But that’s a different issue. And as all news is government controlled, it isn’t suprising they might have that view
Most Cubans lurve the US — and want to move there.
when cuba does eventually turn into a democracy, it’ll be very interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork. and i suspect it wont be nice.
remember that we only found out about the true extent of the Stasi *after* the GDR fell.
“Only someone who didn’t stop being a leftie until long after Sept 11th 2001 could be “pretty ok about Castro”. Sheesh.
.
PJF | 15.08.06 – 12:52 am |”
castro overthrew a dictator, batista.
pinochet overthrew Allende, who was democratically elected.
thats what i’m on about. castro revolution = ok, pinochet = not ok.
what sane person would NOT support the overthrow of any dictator?
however, the irony of it is that pinochet’s chile ended up being highly properous free market economy, while Cuba turned into animal farm.
the aftermath of castros revolution, with the thousands of so called “fascists” being executed is most definitely not ok to me and never has been.
pinochet overthrew Allende, who was democratically elected.
archduke | Homepage | 16.08.06 – 4:57 pm
The truth – but not the whole truth.
1. The allende regime fiddled elections, violated the Constitution, encouraged left-wing terrorism and was finally outlawed (before the 1973 coup) by both the Chilean Parliament and the Supreme Court.
2. The allende regime’s unconstitutional acts included the imprisonment and killing of striking workers, the intimidation of opposition journalists and the violent seizure of private farms, companies and schools.
2. allende became so unpopular that in the Autumn of 1973 400,000 angry Chileans took to the streets demanding his resignation or removal by the Army. (400,000 from a population of 12,000,000 equates to 2 million+ on the streets of the UK.)
Elizabeth II is not the only Head of State who has served longer than Castro, if only, like Her Majesty, in a titular capacity. There is another whose name the BBC dare not speak. Of course he was thrown out of his country by a dictatorship in 1959 and has spent the intervening 47 years trying to get back into his country whereas Castro is a dictator who has spent the same period of time trying to stop his citizens from leaving his:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama
gordon – but that doesnt justify 20 years of brutal military dictatorship.
BUT at the same time, theres a matter of $300,000 that the KGB gave him for his election fund.
hard choice to make – in south america you had a choice of (u.s. backed) fascism v (ussr backed) communism…
cold war and all that.
archduke | Homepage | 17.08.06 – 2:27 am
In my post I am only adding information about why the coup occurred. If allende had resigned and held elections there wouldn’t have been a coup.
As far as post coup Chile went here’s someone else’s comment:
however, the irony of it is that pinochet’s chile ended up being highly properous free market economy, while Cuba turned into animal farm.
archduke | Homepage | 16.08.06 – 4:57 pm
indeed gordon – we dont know the full history of south america yet.
the archives of cuba are still under lock and key and god knows they had a lot of operatives abroad.
i suspect that we’ll have a GDR-Stasi-like revelation when Cuba turns democratic.
Most of these posts are by people who haven’t been to Cuba.
Cuba is the safest place in Latin American and Caribbean.
No poverty, no homelessness. No-one sleeping in the streets.
Happy people.
So let’s have a bit of informed intelligence and less of this ‘I read alot so let me speak’ crap.
What a bunch of ignoramuses.
Peter Hobday
And another thing: I got fed up reading through this junk I left half way through.
But I got mad and went back through the rest of this hate mail.
I discovered none of it is being read. Which makes sound sense because it’s not worth it.
You can’t just attack the BBC because of a few leftie reports. Y’all are just responding out of spite.
What has happened in Cuba is simply this: personal liberty vs common benefits.
Life is good generally in Cuba. But people can’t just do what nasty thing they like, when they like.
(Maybe that lack of freedom offends?)
But the upside is: if you commit a crime, every one knows where you live, and the police (mostly very young) get you. How?
Because everyone has a home and have a registered address (unlike in the UK and USA).
That is why ever potential criminal is careful and why there is so little crime in Cuba.
Check it out! Especially before you write another ignorant message.
I get it, what your saying is…you don’t like Castro.
Thas all very interesting but…whats it got to do with the BBC?