Marisleysis, Your 15 Minutes Are Up
By Cynthia Cotts
Posted Monday, April 24, 2000, at 11:38 AM ETDear Dan,
All I can say about Elián is, Qué está pasando? The kid may not realize it, but this was Easter weekend, and he was more popular than Jesus Christ.
You give kudos to AP photog Alan Diaz, who caught the federale waving a gun at Elián. But NBC's "exclusive" interview with Diaz this morning turned out to be a dud. Not only did he not go on camera, but he turned out to be inarticulate and unopinionated, even as Matt Lauer cajoled him to denounce the raid. In the last 48 hours, while Diaz's money shot has been in heavy rotation, the media began a round of self-flagellation for hyping Elián. I think that's a more interesting story.
First there was Frank Rich's Op-Ed in the New York Times on Saturday, in which he got a network exec to confess the real reason they're dwelling on Elián: He's a "very sexy" kid caught up in a melodrama. Then last night, Howard Kurtz hosted a special edition of "Reliable Sources" to announce the results of a new CNN/Gallup poll: Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the media coverage of the Elián saga. On that show, Joseph Contreras, the Miami bureau chief for Newsweek, recited the conventional justification for covering this story: As opposed to the death of Princess Di or the O.J. trial, this one's about a substantive foreign-policy issue. Yeah, right.
For another look at media self-examination, check out the piece on Page A22 of today's New York Times, which pits Times national editor Dean Baquet against Boston Globe assistant managing editor Michael Larkin, on the subject of whether the money shot should have run on the first page or not. (Turns out the Times was almost alone in its decision to take the shot off the front page of the late edition of Sunday's paper. In their quest for balance, they got tangled up in spin.)
I'll get to the SWAT team in a moment. But the responsibility for this media insanity lies with the Miami Relatives, as you call them. Now that Elián's in seclusion with his father, it's obvious they're a low-minded bunch of anti-Castro Cuban exiles who exploited the kid for their own purposes. Marisleysis González may be a sex symbol in Cuba, but I think she's a bad actor in every sense of the word (especially compared with Elián, who comes out of this looking like Macaulay Culkin).
On Saturday morning after the raid, the Washington Post reported that she "ran outside and fell to the ground in tears." Then she flew to D.C. and gave a press conference, again sobbing uncontrollably, waving the money shot and saying things like "There was no guns in that house." Let's face it, she's a publicity-seeking phony, and her tears are those of a woman who realizes her 15 minutes are up. Why else was she prowling around the Crystal City mall yesterday, following Monica Lewinsky's footsteps? It's only a matter of weeks before the right-wing conspiracy gets her a makeover and turns her into Paula Jones.
Finally, about that raid. I agree it was excessive, and eerily reminiscent of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Fortunately for Reno, there were no weapons in the house, despite "rumors" of old Navy SEALs that might be on hand to protect the family from the feds. (And by the way, the Justice Department has produced a search warrant for the raid. It was shown on TV shows this morning.) Reno's a hypocrite, yeah. But for a real show of hypocrisy, check out the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal's editorials and Op-Eds today, in which they use the money shot to tar the entire Clinton administration, including Hillary and Al Gore. Post columnist Dick Morris advances the notion that Bill Clinton is in the pocket of Fidel Castro, who has been threatening to dump another boatload of refugees before the election cycle is out. And the Journal's lead editorial suggests that Elián was drugged on the flight to Washington, in preparation for the Cuban psychiatrists who will be slipping into America to brainwash him. (In her backup Op-Ed, Peggy Noonan reflects, "Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.")
Meanwhile, conservatives are calling for congressional hearings to investigate the raid. If the Republican Party were really bothered by unjustified searches and seizures, they would hold hearings about the fact that heavily armed predawn raids of private homes, based on flimsy search warrants that turn up after the fact, are conducted every day in the name of the drug war, often against defenseless blacks and Hispanics. There's no question that the Clinton Justice Department is cynical. But the buildup of police power since the early 1970s has made it possible for any cynical executive to order raids like this one, in pursuit of political ends.
For more on this, I recommend reading Ed Epstein's Agency of Fear, which chronicles the birth of the Drug Enforcement Administration under Nixon. It's out of print, but it's available online here.
End of rant--until tomorrow!
Best,
Cynthia
Marisleysis, Your 15 Minutes Are Up
By Cynthia Cotts
Posted Monday, April 24, 2000, at 11:38 AM ETCynthia Cotts writes the "Press Clips" column for the Village Voice. Dan Kennedy is the senior writer and media criticfor the Boston Phoenix. Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)