Twenty volumes won’t suffice just to index our misunderstandings in international politics, created, carried out, performed or neglected by “American.” And this is, I repeat, at an international level only. At a domestic level, we are talking big megabytes! I’m just concerned about how the people abroad interpret out attitude toward politics.
That is fun and democracy. However, others think that our democracy, when practiced at international levels, turns wishy-washy. Our national decisions are not of a dictator’s. Elected presidents under Congress supervision make decision. They say our president’s hands are most of the time tied-up by Congress. Is it for better or for worse? Difficult to say.
On the plane to Madrid, a Spaniard told me it was difficult even for him to understand the detachment he had noticed in the U.S. media toward their government. And I said even, because Spaniards are notorious for their paradoxical relationship with religion and politics, which often swings from reverent to viciously irreverent.
“You hear political commentators, journalists and even politicians repeat all the time the phrase this country instead of our country as if the speaker or writer had adopted it or were just visiting it; this administration — as if it were voted in by the Chinese. This supposed objectivity is phony, and contributes to alienate the people from their elected government and their fatherland.”
He continued:“Coño, your media give more time to Russian politicians and to Russian commentators than they give to your own president!”
“I think you’re exaggerating.”
“I don’t think so, I think that you don’t realize how serious this is. You’re more disrespectful to your president than to anyone else. Anything he says, no matter what, is automatically challenged by some arrivista (opportunistic) politician to get free publicity.”
(He made this comment long before he witnessed the day the networks refused to broadcast the President’s speech on the aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas. Most people abroad interpreted this refusal as an arrogant, disrespectful conduct toward the President by censorial media monopolies, not to Ronald Reagan, but to the elected president of the nation. Even people who normally would like to see Reagan hanged resented it criticized it.
American journalists are harshly criticized abroad for ignoring the language of the country they are reporting from. They constantly claim it is that the reason why American journalists write their reports from the bar of his hotel. They get informed, they say, about domestic politics through bilingual bartenders. And this would be the best case.
They may be skillfully manipulated by trained government interpreters, especially by leftist groups. Journalists are usually attracted to them by their typical American sympathy for the underdog and this is profitable to some political interests.
Or as the case of foreign journalists in Cuba, who wouldn’t dare to report the truth, and sheepishly accepts to be fed with governmental phony news and statistic in order not to lose their beach and sun privileges. The regime persecutes, jails, tortures and represses the population and no foreign journalist reports anything that would upset the Communist Regime afraid of losing their comfortable position in a tropical paradise.
Not speaking the local language is a real handicap for a journalist. He has to rely on interpreters who may or may not be honest when delivering their version. They are also unable to get a general picture, because this is usually provided by street talk. You’ll notice how scarce this is, when they report back home. Some may consider this criticism a dangerous generalization. But by missing this important communication tool — language — some journalists create more misunderstandings.
Criticism here in the States is sometimes vicious, but criticism abroad can be quite vicious, too. And the Spanish press is no exception. So, I pointed out to him one example. Lola Flores, perhaps the most famous and most loved Spanish singer and actress in Spain, made a serious mistake. She posed nude for Interviú, a “general interest” magazine sprinkled with nudity.
So? Well, Lola is no Spring chicken. Offensive wrinkles showed in those pictures. The Spanish press reacted viciously. Another magazine, El Jueves, published on its cover the picture of the behind of an atrociously wrinkled elephant. The headline read: ¡EL CULO DE LA LOLA! (Lola’s Ass!).
And that was the kind part. The articles and cartoons that filled it were what we usually classify as too much! They showed graphics of what they called her internal organs. And this type of satire goes on also in politics. The things satiric writers get away with in Spain are unthinkable of in the USA.
And this can take us to “freedom” — as others see it.