Tweet
Cut out the selective media reporting
Saturday, April 17, 2010
AT the recent United Nations Donor Conference on Haiti, Cuba announced a programme to rebuild the country's entire National Health Service. Although this was, arguably, the most ambitious and impressive pledge of the 59 governments, regional blocs and financial institutions, it was largely ignored by the leading US media - and hence overlooked by most of the world.
The Cuban programme, which is based on the highly effective system developed in that country, embraces primary, secondary and tertiary health care, and medical training. Some of the highlights are:
*101 clinics at the primary level with the capacity to treat 2.8 million patients annually, perform 1.3 million emergency operations, deliver 168,000 babies and provide 3 million vaccinations.
*30 community hospitals at the secondary level capable of treating 2.1 million patients annually; provide 1 million emergency surgeries, 54,000 operations, 276,000 electro-cardiograms, 107,000 dental exams, 144,000 diagnostic ultrasounds, and 487,000 laboratory tests. Poly-traumatised patients will be served by the 30 rehabilitation rooms and up to 2.4 million therapeutic treatments for 520,000 patients made available.
*A tertiary-level Specialties Hospital level, staffed by 80 Cuban specialist doctors, with various clinical departments, to be used for research, teaching and training of Haitians to replace the Cubans.
*312 additional medical scholarships for Haitians to study in Cuba.
The Cuban programme is actually a development of medical assistance provided since 1999, dramatically increased since the earthquake. The Cuban medical brigade in Haiti has a presence in 127 of the 137 communes, saved 223,442 lives, treated 14 million people, performed 225,000 operations and delivered 109,000 babies. Since the January 12 earthquake, 23 of the primary care health centres, 15 community reference hospitals and 21 rehabilitation rooms have been put in operation.
The cost of the Cuban programme over a 10-year period is estimated at $690.5 million (at 50 per cent of international prices). This is an enormous amount for a small developing country that has been subject to an economic blockade from its powerful neighbour for nearly 50 years. It is even more notable when compared to the assistance pledged by the governments of industrialised countries.
Cuba's contribution, in relation to its GDP, is 152 times that of the United States, which pledged $1.15 billion. France pledged $188.93M, Germany $53.17M, Japan $75M, and Canada $375.23M. Italy and the UK were probably included in the $203.19M pledge by "EU Remaining" group of countries.
In absolute terms the value of Cuba's contribution is almost four times that of France, 12 times that of Germany, and almost twice that of Canada. Excluding the US, it exceeds the rest of the G7 countries combined and that of the World Bank (US$479 M) by 35 per cent.
While other countries are pledging money, Cuba is actively creating an entire sustainable health care system which will treat 75 per cent of the Haitian population, and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Analysis of the coverage of the Conference by five major US media - CNN, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and The Miami Herald - revealed that of 38 posts recorded in the 10 days immediately following the conference, only one (the Miami Herald) mentioned the Cuban contribution.Twenty-two of the 38 postings, however, mention the US contribution.
A search of the first 50 results in Google News for "United Nations Haiti Donor Conference" produced only two articles that mentioned Cuba's role - one simply focused on the rarity of collaboration between Cuban and US officials. By contrast, 31 of the 50 discuss the contributions of developed countries, 21 specifically that of the United States, nine referring to the US pledge.
The main theme of these articles was the importance of the US role in helping Haiti. The US effort was often described as being equally or more important than that of the UN. Thus one stated, "The biggest contributions came from the United States and the European Union"- which is not even true, given that Venezuela pledged US$2.4 billion. The United States consistently headed the list of contributing countries.
Another common theme in coverage was the paucity of assistance from other countries. When US assistance was not highlighted, that of other countries was often denigrated. There is a consistent pattern of disproportionately positive representation of the US and of blanking the Cuban contribution.
There is a dramatic contrast between this "cover-up" and the attention given on alleged human rights abuses in Cuba. Dozens of articles have appeared in recent weeks focusing on the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a jailed "dissident" with a criminal record who had refused food for 80 days, and the hunger strike of Guillermo Fariñas.
Zapata's unfortunate death has been used consistently as a springboard to focus negative attention on Cuba. Between February 10 and April 6 there were 77 stories in the five media houses surveyed about the hunger strikers. Five were on CNN, seven in The New York Times, 13 in The Washington Post, four in The Boston Globe and 48 in The Miami Herald.
The difference in the coverage of these two Cuba-related stories is striking.
In preference to reporting on a Cuban programme which will improve the lives of 75 per cent of Haiti's population of nine million, these media have highlighted the US role in Haiti. In their Cuban coverage, they have chosen to focus on the cases of two men who have deliberately decided to embark on a suicidal course, presented as martyrs, with the obvious aim of embarrassing the Cuban Government. Selective commendation in one case; selective indignation in the other. We are supposed to believe, however, that these media are "free" and "unbiased". Unfortunately, much of the rest of the world's media take their cue from this kind of selective reporting. This needs to change.
The above is by Emily J Kirk, researcher at Cambridge, University, England, em_kirk@hotmail.com;
John M Kirk, professor at Dalhousie University, Canada,
kirk@dal.ca;
Norman Girvan, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago, www.normangirvan.info.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
AT the recent United Nations Donor Conference on Haiti, Cuba announced a programme to rebuild the country's entire National Health Service. Although this was, arguably, the most ambitious and impressive pledge of the 59 governments, regional blocs and financial institutions, it was largely ignored by the leading US media - and hence overlooked by most of the world.
The Cuban programme, which is based on the highly effective system developed in that country, embraces primary, secondary and tertiary health care, and medical training. Some of the highlights are:
*101 clinics at the primary level with the capacity to treat 2.8 million patients annually, perform 1.3 million emergency operations, deliver 168,000 babies and provide 3 million vaccinations.
*30 community hospitals at the secondary level capable of treating 2.1 million patients annually; provide 1 million emergency surgeries, 54,000 operations, 276,000 electro-cardiograms, 107,000 dental exams, 144,000 diagnostic ultrasounds, and 487,000 laboratory tests. Poly-traumatised patients will be served by the 30 rehabilitation rooms and up to 2.4 million therapeutic treatments for 520,000 patients made available.
*A tertiary-level Specialties Hospital level, staffed by 80 Cuban specialist doctors, with various clinical departments, to be used for research, teaching and training of Haitians to replace the Cubans.
*312 additional medical scholarships for Haitians to study in Cuba.
The Cuban programme is actually a development of medical assistance provided since 1999, dramatically increased since the earthquake. The Cuban medical brigade in Haiti has a presence in 127 of the 137 communes, saved 223,442 lives, treated 14 million people, performed 225,000 operations and delivered 109,000 babies. Since the January 12 earthquake, 23 of the primary care health centres, 15 community reference hospitals and 21 rehabilitation rooms have been put in operation.
The cost of the Cuban programme over a 10-year period is estimated at $690.5 million (at 50 per cent of international prices). This is an enormous amount for a small developing country that has been subject to an economic blockade from its powerful neighbour for nearly 50 years. It is even more notable when compared to the assistance pledged by the governments of industrialised countries.
Cuba's contribution, in relation to its GDP, is 152 times that of the United States, which pledged $1.15 billion. France pledged $188.93M, Germany $53.17M, Japan $75M, and Canada $375.23M. Italy and the UK were probably included in the $203.19M pledge by "EU Remaining" group of countries.
In absolute terms the value of Cuba's contribution is almost four times that of France, 12 times that of Germany, and almost twice that of Canada. Excluding the US, it exceeds the rest of the G7 countries combined and that of the World Bank (US$479 M) by 35 per cent.
While other countries are pledging money, Cuba is actively creating an entire sustainable health care system which will treat 75 per cent of the Haitian population, and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Analysis of the coverage of the Conference by five major US media - CNN, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and The Miami Herald - revealed that of 38 posts recorded in the 10 days immediately following the conference, only one (the Miami Herald) mentioned the Cuban contribution.Twenty-two of the 38 postings, however, mention the US contribution.
A search of the first 50 results in Google News for "United Nations Haiti Donor Conference" produced only two articles that mentioned Cuba's role - one simply focused on the rarity of collaboration between Cuban and US officials. By contrast, 31 of the 50 discuss the contributions of developed countries, 21 specifically that of the United States, nine referring to the US pledge.
The main theme of these articles was the importance of the US role in helping Haiti. The US effort was often described as being equally or more important than that of the UN. Thus one stated, "The biggest contributions came from the United States and the European Union"- which is not even true, given that Venezuela pledged US$2.4 billion. The United States consistently headed the list of contributing countries.
Another common theme in coverage was the paucity of assistance from other countries. When US assistance was not highlighted, that of other countries was often denigrated. There is a consistent pattern of disproportionately positive representation of the US and of blanking the Cuban contribution.
There is a dramatic contrast between this "cover-up" and the attention given on alleged human rights abuses in Cuba. Dozens of articles have appeared in recent weeks focusing on the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a jailed "dissident" with a criminal record who had refused food for 80 days, and the hunger strike of Guillermo Fariñas.
Zapata's unfortunate death has been used consistently as a springboard to focus negative attention on Cuba. Between February 10 and April 6 there were 77 stories in the five media houses surveyed about the hunger strikers. Five were on CNN, seven in The New York Times, 13 in The Washington Post, four in The Boston Globe and 48 in The Miami Herald.
The difference in the coverage of these two Cuba-related stories is striking.
In preference to reporting on a Cuban programme which will improve the lives of 75 per cent of Haiti's population of nine million, these media have highlighted the US role in Haiti. In their Cuban coverage, they have chosen to focus on the cases of two men who have deliberately decided to embark on a suicidal course, presented as martyrs, with the obvious aim of embarrassing the Cuban Government. Selective commendation in one case; selective indignation in the other. We are supposed to believe, however, that these media are "free" and "unbiased". Unfortunately, much of the rest of the world's media take their cue from this kind of selective reporting. This needs to change.
The above is by Emily J Kirk, researcher at Cambridge, University, England, em_kirk@hotmail.com;
John M Kirk, professor at Dalhousie University, Canada,
kirk@dal.ca;
Norman Girvan, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago, www.normangirvan.info.