Miami Herald Publisher Resigns

The Miami Herald's publisher resigned Tuesday, saying "ambiguously communicated" personnel policies resulted in the firings of three journalists at its Spanish-language paper who were paid to appear on U.S.-government broadcasts aimed at promoting democracy in Cuba.

Jesus Diaz Jr., the papers' publisher since July 2005, had dismissed two El Nuevo Herald reporters and a freelance contributor who had been paid by Radio Marti and TV Marti. Diaz said the company offered to rehire the three and that six others who took payments would not be disciplined.

"I realize and regret that the events of the past three weeks have created an environment that no longer allows me to lead our newspapers in a manner most beneficial for our newspapers, our readers and our community," Diaz wrote in a letter to readers announcing his resignation.

David Landsberg, a longtime Herald employee who served as general manager, took over immediately as company president and publisher of the two newspapers, said The McClatchy Co., the papers' parent company based in Sacramento, Calif. McClatchy acquired the newspapers in June when it bought Knight Ridder Inc.

"While we are sorry to see Jesus leave, we couldn't be happier about having such a talented and experienced leader perfectly poised to step into this important job," said Gary Pruitt, McClatchy president and CEO.

McClatchy spokeswoman Elaine Lintecum declined comment beyond what was in the company's news release.

More...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189886
Herald' Publisher Quits, Reporters Reinstated

All Things Considered, October 3, 2006 · The publisher who fired three journalists at a major Spanish-language newspaper in Miami for conflicts of interest lost his own job Tuesday after acknowledging the scope of the scandal was greater than previously disclosed.

Until Tuesday, Jesus Diaz Jr. was the publisher of El Nuevo Herald and its sister paper, The Miami Herald. Diaz fired the reporters last month for accepting payments from Radio Marti or TV Marti. Both are U.S. government broadcasters with the mission of undermining Cuban leader Fidel Castro's rule.

Diaz revealed Tuesday that a total of nine Nuevo Herald journalists had been involved, and that he was quitting as publisher after just 14 months.

"The last couple of weeks have been embarrassing for the paper, a paper that has a tremendous legacy of fine journalism," says Carl Hiaasen, the Miami Herald's renowned columnist. "And I just think that somebody had to go."

The pressure building on executives at both newspapers was excruciating. The Miami Herald broke the initial story about the three El Nuevo writers. Some Cuban-American activists expect the Spanish-language paper to oppose Castro openly.

Sergio Bendixen, the president of a Miami-based firm that gauges Latino public opinion, says their subsequent firing caused an uproar among some Cuban-Americans.

A few weeks ago, Hiaasen wrote a column praising his bosses for standing up to the pressure -- and also making light of the situation.

He jokingly took this line: "Hey, where's my check? I've been saying mean things about Castro for decades, and nobody's ever sent me a dime."

But many subscriptions to the paper had been canceled, and Hiaasen found the Herald had no interest in further inflaming tensions with angry Cuban-Americans in South Florida.

"I was told that my column was going to be fuel on the fire," Hiaasen tells NPR. "My response was, 'Who cares?' Since when do I worry about what the circulation numbers are? That's a problem with the business side."

He adds, "When they told me my column wasn't going to run, my response was, 'You'll have my resignation in the morning.'"

Ultimately, after his threat, the column ran. Through a spokeswoman, Diaz declined to comment.

The two papers function largely independently of one another. Bendixen says El Nuevo Herald operates more like a partisan Latin American newspaper than a typical American daily that proclaims its objectivity.

"The Cuban community in Miami is not particularly objective in terms of the battle against Fidel Castro," Bendixen says. "There's only one side to that argument."

In a statement Tuesday, Diaz acknowledged that several journalists credibly claimed to have been given permission by editors to appear on Marti. Bendixen says that eroded Diaz's initial stand.

"It then became obvious that it was management at the paper that had really not made the rules clear to the reporters," Bendixen says.

The fired reporters were given their jobs back because, Diaz wrote, ethical standards were not clearly articulated within the El Nuevo Herald newsroom. Columnist Hiaasen says journalists at The Miami Herald would never have been allowed to accept money from the government -- but that reporters at El Nuevo Herald were operating in a different world.

"You're either the voice of the free press, or you're the voice of the government," Hiaasen says. "You aren't the voice of both."

Both papers were part of the Knight-Ridder chain, but were purchased by the McClatchy Company this year.

Executives at the papers did not respond by deadline to several requests for comment.

Bendixen says El Nuevo Herald operates more like a partisan Latin American newspaper than a typical American daily that proclaims its objectivity.

A typical American daily proclaims its own objectivity. Not only each daily individually but all of American journalism in general proclaims its own objectivity. The Washington Post doesn't question the objectivity of ABC News, and ABC News doesn't question the objectivity of The Washington Post - or CBS News, or The New York Times, or . . .
IOW - as Rush puts it - if you miss The Washington Post watch ABC News, and you miss CBS News read The New York Times - and so forth and so on. They are all the same. You need look no further for the "conspiracy" in that than "mutual assured destruction."
Each individual journalism organ buys ink by the truck load, but no individual "objective" journal dares break the rule that "you don't pick an argument with people who buy ink by the carload." Because the moment you do that, you have marked yourself as the target of all of journalism, not just the particular journal whose objectivity you questioned. "Objective journalist" is a lucrative franchise, and participation in it is by consensus.
Given the resources, you can create a new member of "objective journalism" quite readily - you just report the same type of story that the rest of "objective journalism" reports. And what kind of story is that? Simply put, stories that documents the foibles and failures of everyone. Everyone except any member in good standing of "objective journalism" or anyone else who criticizes everyone or every institution which does not adhere to the "objective journalism" concensus.
The targets which "objective journalism" considers legitimate to attack are all people and institutions which have a bottom line - everyone who must make decisions in the face of uncertainty because they are not merely talking but are trying actually to do something important. That includes not only institutions such as oil companies and manufacturers and truckers and doctors, but also (note that they are part of the government and not private at all) the police and the military.
The people who are not considered legitimate targets include:

"objective journalists" in good standing

people who help criticize those the "objective journalist" considers a legitimate target. Members of this category include:

Democrat politicians

union leaders

plaintiff lawyers

paradoxically, many of the most financially successful (e.g., Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) will buy membership with rhetoric and with substantial financial contributions.

anyone without expertise in a given PC hobbyhorse issue but who feels a need for facile protection from criticism on that paarticular issue - such as

Miss America pageant contestants
movie stars
liberal arts professors
etc.

"The Cuban community in Miami is not particularly objective in terms of the battle against Fidel Castro," Bendixen says. "There's only one side to that argument."

Here "objective" is clearly code for opposition to Fidel Castro; partisanship in favor of Fidel Castro would not draw criticism. Because . . .

"You're either the voice of the free press, or you're the voice of the [American] government," Hiaasen says. "You aren't the voice of both."

This is a definition of "the free press" as being

a unitary institution (real freedom there! </sarcasm>)

in opposition to the American government. IOW, not distinguishable from a political party.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

Fresh news this morning. Looks like a full-scale meltdown of the DriveBy Media in Miami...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15672617.htm
A column, a quarrel -- and change at the top
A battle over whether a column should be published contributed to the decision to resign by Miami Herald Publisher Jesús Díaz Jr.
BY DOUGLAS HANKS
dhanks@MiamiHerald.com

Publisher Jesús Díaz Jr. announced his resignation Tuesday. But he actually quit two weeks ago -- about the time of a blow-up over a column by Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen.

Díaz believed Hiaasen's sarcastic essay on the three El Nuevo Herald writers paid by Radio and TV Martí shouldn't run. Hiaasen threatened to quit. Díaz wasn't yielding.

A furious Hiaasen phoned friends close to The Miami Herald's new owner, the McClatchy Co. Within hours, Howard Weaver, McClatchy's top news executive, called The Miami Herald to voice his support for strong columnists in the company's papers.

By the close of business, Díaz reversed course and ordered the column published. Sixteen days later, he resigned as publisher of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, saying the Martí controversy had ``created an environment that no longer allows me to lead our newspapers.''

The incident sheds light on some of the pressures Díaz faced and on McClatchy's role in responding to the scandal. Díaz would not comment on the Hiaasen episode, and did not mention it in talking about his departure after the reinstatement of the fired El Nuevo Herald writers.

When asked to clarify further why he left, he said, ''Maybe you should ask the folks within The Herald and McClatchy.'' He added, ``We made certain changes, we made certain allowances, and I don't think I can be effective in that environment.''

Frank Whittaker, McClatchy vice president of operations, said Díaz was asked to hold off announcing his departure until a replacement was found. General Manager David Landsberg was named Díaz's successor on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Díaz and senior managers at The Miami Herald Media Co. continued investigating the reporters who had worked for Radio and TV Martí.

On Tuesday, two of the three fired El Nuevo Herald reporters, Pablo Alfonso and Wilfredo Cancio Isla, accepted offers to return to work, with back pay. The third, freelance reporter Olga Connor, is in Spain.

Alfonso and Cancio Isla, who agreed to no longer accept money from the U.S. government-run broadcasters, were enthusiastic about their reinstatements, Herald general counsel Robert Beatty said.

Cancio referred calls to his lawyer but told The Associated Press, ``This opens a chapter for an honest discussion over the values of Hispanic journalism.''

Díaz also revealed Tuesday that six other employees of El Nuevo Herald had received payments. The company granted all amnesty.

Top Miami Herald and McClatchy executives announced a new policy that no journalists in the future will accept pay for appearances on government-sponsored media. They also sought to counter the perception that they caved to pressure from some in the Cuban exile community and from the cancellation of more than 1,900 subscriptions.

- snip -

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15672634.htm
Newsroom philosophies differ
Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald editors disagreed Tuesday on the appropriateness of work for Radio or TV Martí.
BY CHRISTINA HOAG
choag@MiamiHerald.com

The editors of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald differed sharply Tuesday over whether their journalists can appear as guests on TV and Radio Martí, the U.S. anti-Castro propaganda channels.

Under no circumstances, said Miami Herald Executive Editor Tom Fiedler. ''The U.S. government is on one side,'' he said. ``We really hold to the standard that we are the watchdogs of government.''

Yes, but not for money, said El Nuevo Herald Executive Editor Humberto Castelló. Cubans rely on TV and Radio Martí for information, he said: ``They have no free press.''

The divergent policies for two newsrooms under the same roof lie at the crux of the resignation of Jesús Díaz Jr., publisher for both, which stunned many employees at The Miami Herald Media Co.

The contrasting opinions also illustrate differing roles of journalism in Latin America and the United States -- and how that divide plays out in South Florida. American journalism today, unlike decades ago, prizes objectivity, while Latin American journalism may advocate for change.

''What you have here is a kind of clash of ideas and values,'' said Dario Moreno, an associate professor of political science at Florida International University.

Díaz quit after grappling with fallout from his firing of two El Nuevo Herald reporters and one freelancer who were paid by TV Martí.

On Tuesday, the journalists were offered their jobs back after further inquiries by management. The investigation showed that besides the three reporters, six other El Nuevo Herald staffers had done paid work for TV Martí in the past. All but one said their arrangements had been approved by El Nuevo's previous editor, the late Carlos Castaneda.

After a thorough review of federal documents, The Miami Herald found 49 full-time journalists or contributors to local media outlets who also received payments from Radio and TV Martí from October 2001 to August 2006.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15672388.htm
Miami native takes reins of Miami Herald
David Landsberg, a lifelong Miami Herald employee who is described as unassuming and a good listener, climbs to the newspaper's highest position.
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com

A native Miamian who has spent virtually all his career at The Miami Herald, new publisher David Landsberg will now lead a newspaper with sinking circulation in a troubled industry while dealing with deep divisions within the company.

''It's a very tough moment right now,'' said former publisher Dave Lawrence, ``but there have been a lot of tough moments here. . . He's the ideal person for Miami because he's a good listener and he'll listen to everyone.''

Landsberg, 44, replaced Jesús Díaz Jr. on Monday. Díaz resigned after it was announced that three El Nuevo Herald journalists would be invited back to work after being fired or dropped with his approval for working for Radio Martí.

''I enjoy a good challenge,'' said Landsberg. ``I want to listen, get the facts, get advice, and that helps me make a decision.''

The Miami Herald has been consistently losing circulation, even as it led the old Knight Ridder news group for profits.

And the stock prices of major newspaper companies, including The McClatchy Co., The Miami Herald's new owner, have been falling steadily.

Landsberg believes there is still a profound need for news, particularly local news, whether it be on newsprint, on the Internet or elsewhere. And he remains ''bullish on the industry,'' looking for new opportunities and focusing on growth.

Landsberg quickly got a taste of his new job when he spoke to the staffs of both The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald on Tuesday. Many in the English-language newsroom were upset that the rules appeared to have been bent to allow the El Nuevo Herald journalists to return. Many in the Spanish-language newsroom were upset that journalists were fired in the first place and their reputations demeaned.

''We are at war between the two newsrooms,'' El Nuevo Herald reporter Rui Ferreira told Landsberg.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17403
The Miami Herald's Scandal That Wasn't

by Paul Crespo
Posted Oct 06, 2006
With the sudden resignation of Miami Herald Publisher Jesus Diaz on Tuesday, and the offer to reinstate the Herald’s three journalists unjustly fired on September 8, the newspaper’s "Castro-gate" scandal takes an added twist. What began as an alleged scandal involving Cuban American journalists who were "taking pay from the U.S." government, quickly has devolved into a real scandal involving an unethical, sensationalized smear job by the Miami Herald.

With Fidel Castro’s decrepit dictatorship on its deathbed and the communist island on the cusp of radical change, the Miami Herald chose a strangely strategic moment to discredit Castro’s democratic opponents in Miami. On September 8, the Herald published a front-page pseudo expose,’ "10 Miami journalists take U.S. pay," which listed me among those 10.

This hit piece tried to sully the reputation of any commentator who has ever been paid to appear on TV Marti (the U.S. government's TV news station aimed at Cuba), implying they are all U.S. government shills.

Predictably, Castro’s regime immediately began touting it as proof that all its Miami-based critics are "U.S. mercenaries." Suspiciously, in the weeks prior to this article's publication, Castro's spokesmen and "El Comandante" himself, had publicly taunted the Herald to write just such a story.

Far from the impression the Herald created, its reporters Oscar Corral, et al, are not Woodward and Bernstein, nor did they uncover Watergate. Look closely at their story, and there is little there, and the reporters look more like Keystone Cops. The real scandal is how this unprofessional smear was ever published.

Begin with the grotesquely misleading “take U.S. pay” headline that falsely implied a dirty or secret arrangement between my journalistic colleagues and the U.S. government. The headline insinuated that we all were "on the take" or being "paid off." This patently is false and borders on libel. Predictably though, left wing media quickly used the "on the take" spin in their follow-up stories. “Journalists on the take Defend Cuba Bashing,” screamed the September 15 headline in PoliticalAffairs.net, a Marxist website.

A more accurate, less sensational headline correctly could have read: "10 Miami journalists also consult for TV Marti," but that wouldn’t have been front-page news. Many prominent journalists get paid to appear on government funded media such as the Voice of America, NPR and PBS. Are they all unethical, government shills?

For added effect, the Herald immediately fired three of its Cuban-American reporters for “conflict of interest.” Expressing his righteous indignation, Herald Publisher Jesus Diaz proclaimed that, ''Even the appearance that your objectivity or integrity might have been impaired is something we can't condone, not in our business.''

Yet, former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffee, among others, has stated that the punishment did not fit the crime. While emphasizing that there was nothing illegal about the Herald reporters moonlighting for TV Marti, Coffee added that even if there were a potential conflict of interest, their abrupt firing by the Herald was excessive—like executing someone for a misdemeanor.

The Herald also crammed print and TV reporters and opinion columnists in the same boat. Yet, most media professionals understand there is a big difference. As a commentator and analyst, I get paid to give my opinion. The Miami Herald previously paid me to write editorials and a regular column.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, I was a paid on-air military analyst for TV Marti, just as I was for Miami’s Fox News affiliate, WSVN 7 TV News, giving the same perspective to both outlets. I recently began a weekly TV Marti world affairs program, which I have publicly disclosed on my radio show.

None of this is secret. All the Herald had to do was ask. The Herald claims this story was part of a two-year investigation, but all the information gained could have been collected in two days. Like the other 10 persons cited I was called for comment only the night before the article was published. The Herald printed only curt, one-liners in a response box from those it could reach.

Guillermo Martinez, a syndicated columnist and former member of the Miami Herald editorial board, says, “That’s called ambushing your target and generally considered unethical.” He adds, “Time permitting, as this case did, you are supposed to give the targets of your investigation adequate opportunity to defend themselves. Calling them after the story is basically written is wrong.”

The story quotes Iván Román, executive director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), to argue that there was a conflict of interest for the 10 journalists in this case. Yet, this is the same group that hosted top Castro henchman, Ricardo Alarcon, to a controversial video interview for its annual conference in Fort Lauderdale in June. Mr. Roman is not exactly an impartial judge.

Coincidentally, during that interview, Alarcon cynically justified Castro’s brutal imprisonment of the few independent journalists in Cuba by charging they too were paid by the U.S.

The Herald initially claimed it knew its reporters had been collaborating with TV and Radio Marti for years, but didn’t know they were being paid. As we now learn, they just didn’t look closely enough. The Herald wrote a story in 2002 showing that one of the columnists mentioned, Olga Connor, was paid by TV Marti, even noting her salary.

Maybe the Herald should require its reporters to also read their own paper. It now has surfaced that the former editor of the Nuevo Herald, the late Carlos Castaneda, had approved their paid participation on TV Marti shows.

The Herald story’s kicker was the un-quoted closing comment of two un-named "ethics experts” equating this issue to the scandal involving the Bush administration paying pundit Armstrong Williams to promote its education program. According to the Herald’s two "ethics experts" we may have been paid to spread propaganda in the U.S.

That was outrageous.

Unlike the Williams case, everything here is in the public record. TV Marti is required to pay regular analysts a nominal fee per program for shows beamed into Cuba. Like Radio Free Europe beamed into the Communist bloc during the Cold War, nothing on TV Marti is intended for domestic U.S. consumption, nor directed at U.S. citizens. So how is this comparable?

It is not, which is why the Herald’s ethically challenged “ethics experts” remained anonymous. Or was that simply the reporter’s disguised agenda showing? As expected though, the September 9, New York Times headline falsely read: “U.S. paid 10 journalists for anti-Castro reports,” and reiterated the fallacious Williams comparison. For the record, most of my TV Marti commentary does not involve Cuba.

The background to this Herald article is even more interesting and deserving of investigation. In July, local TV reporter Juan Manuel Cao, also mentioned in the Herald article, cornered Castro in Argentina with a tough, pointed question. The enraged tyrant shot back, calling him a Bush mercenary and asking “Who pays you?”

Later, before falling ill in August, Castro publicly hinted that the answer to his "Who pays you" question soon would be revealed. A week before the Herald published its article, another Castro mouthpiece on Cuban state TV, Reinaldo Taladrid (who, like many other in the Cuban state media, is believed to be employed by Cuban intelligence) presciently asked: what if the Herald investigated the anti-Castro Cuban-American journalists in Miami?

How did Castro’s goons know of the story before the Herald published it? That has become the big question. It appears the Herald should be more concerned about Cuban government influence and penetration of the Herald.

Take Janet Comellas, currently a copy editor at the Nuevo Herald, who until November 2005 was a senior propaganda writer for Castro’s official state-run newspaper, “Granma.”

And there’s Marifeli Perez-Stable, a regular the Herald editorial contributor who in the 1970s and 80s was an open and ardent Castro defender and Sandinista sympathizer. While she has moderated her writing since then, Perez-Stable never has recanted her old views.

According to Indiana University Professor Antonio de la Cova, Perez-Stable was “outed” by Captain Jesús Pérez Méndez, a Cuban intelligence defector in 1983 as being “controlled” by Cuban intelligence.

While we don't know all the answers yet, unnamed sources say some at the Herald are "taking pay" from Castro—just don't quote me on that.

FIEDLER IN THE PEN

By Hugo J. Byrne

?Whence come the fanatics? Mostly from the ranks of the non creative men of words?.

Eric Hoffer (?The True Believer?)

The Editor of the Miami Herald is an odd-looking fellow with a high pitched, nagging voice by the name of Thomas Fiedler, and he dislikes most Cuban-American journalists. Fiedler abhors Cubans who entertain the ?radical, right- wing notion? that Castro is a tyrant and not a President. Tom hates their noisy daily condemnation of the Cuban regime through their Miami-based Spanish radio. So much does Mr. Fiedler dislike those irritating Cubans, that he recently equated them with dogs.

No, dear reader, this is not a figure of speech. In a recent interview Mr. Fiedler literally compared Miami?s ?Radio Mambí? commentators to little dogs ?nipping at his heels?. ?Little Chihuahuas?, he called the object of his derision. Later on, ?smoothing? this racist slur, Fiedler promised next time to compare Cuban journalists to ?Boston Terriers?.

Not that Mr. Fiedler, his Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald publishers object to all Cuban ?journalists?. No sir! There is a certain kind they definitely love, like some servile pencil pushers who recently arrived from Castroland with a good record of praise for the Castro regime and of hatred toward the U.S. Take for example Janet Comellas and Alejandro Armengol, paid contributors to ?El Nuevo Herald?, Spanish language sister publication to the Miami Herald. Comellas worked for the Castro-Communist daily ?Granma? until September of last year.

In her work for Granma, Comellas regularly expounded the superior moral standing of the Castro regime and derided the U.S. government and the American way of life. Comellas' last known piece for Granma was dated Sept.17 2005. In that article, she gave a detailed account -based upon science fiction- of how Eastern Europe's former Soviet Union satellites were in much better shape under totalitarian communism than with their present democratic system.

Alejandro Armengol is El Nuevo Herald's official basher of anti-Castro Cubans. Almost one out of every three articles written by this revolting individual is a blistering biased attack against the Cuban exile community as a whole- as well as the U.S. government- not unlike those printed daily in Granma. Armengol does not bother with facts. His essays are plagued with inaccuracies and outright lies.

Getting caught red handed in a lie is not a big deal for the Cuban-basher; Alejandro simply ignores any objective information proving his blatant dishonesty. Example: In a recent article, Armengol stated that Luis Posada Carriles is presently free in the U. S.

When he wrote his diatribe, Armengol must have known that Posada remained detained in a Texas prison. He still is. But, to my knowledge, despite many reminding him of that fact, Armengol never bothered to set the record straight. Keen on trying to demonstrate the inner malady of his former Cuban nationality, which he is obviously not very proud of, Armengol recently wrote an essay painting nineteenth-century Cuban revolutionary José Martí -Cuba?s counterpart of George Washington- with the darkest colors.

Presiding over this nauseating pen is Mr. Fiedler, who was interviewed about the -likely forced- resignation of the previous Editor of El Nuevo Herald, Jesús Díaz. It was during the interview that Fiedler likened the Commentators at Radio Mambï to ?little chihuahuas nipping at my heels?. Díaz' resignation followed a protracted scandal involving that paper late last month, and he was replaced as Editor of E N H by David Landsberg.

The sequence of events resulting in Fiedler?s insult to Cuban journalists deserves a brief summary. It all began with the bitter exchange between Castro and the Cuban-American journalist, Juan Manuel Cao, in Buenos Aires a couple of months ago. The Tyrant accused Cao of ?being paid? to ask tricky questions that Castro refused to answer. Then the parrot-like Havana ?Round Table? TV show, continued carping on the theme. They announced that some ?Miami mafia? journalists were ?receiving payments from the U. S. government, but that ?they soon would be punished for their infamy?.

Within hours, two veteran columnists and regular contributors who covered Cuban issues for El Nuevo Herald with a semblance of objectivity were banned from work and promptly removed from the paper?s payroll. Their names are Wilfredo Cancio Isla and Pablo Alfonso. In addition, Olga Connor, a contributing freelance writer, was sacked as well. In an incredible Editorial echoing Castro?s propaganda, El Nuevo Herald accused the dismissed journalists -together with others who did not even work for the paper- of a breach of the Herald?s ethical code, which prohibited receiving payments from any governmental agency.

The Cuban community's universal outcry, coupled with substantial loss of revenue (the paper admits to not less than 1800 cancelled subscriptions, and the number of cancelled of advertisements is anybody?s guess) forced El Nuevo Herald to do a shameful about-face. Díaz' resignation was immediately followed by an official offer of reinstatement for Alfonso, Cancio and Connor.

Yet this action did not convey an honest reassessment of the enormity of the paper?s blunder. El Nuevo Herald stated that the Cuban journalists were just victims of administrative mistakes. Despite the fact that all three accepted the offer of returning to their jobs, the wound is still open and bleeding profusely. Alfonso said as much in his first essay upon his return. His legitimate hurt has ominous legal implications for his employer. The obvious double standard applied by the Herald to the writers would eventually lead to a multi-million-dollar litigation, an event predicted in this column two weeks ago. Another prediction: El Nuevo Herald will either loose that civil case, or settle for a similarly large amount.

It is against this background that Mr. Fiedler, when asked if Cuban community pressures had any impact on the recall of the three journalists, answered with his infamous remark. Does Fiedler have a professional death wish?

It only took 24 hours to defame ten or more journalists, fire three from El Nuevo Herald and one from Univision-WLTV Channel 23.

Fire Tom Fiedler
Fire Humberto Castelló
Fire Oscar Corral
Fire Andrés Reynaldo
Fire Alejandro Armengol
Fire Janet Comellas
Fire los Castro-Comunistas

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.