• THE great irony of the case of the Cuban Five would seem to be its relation to the communications media.

In Miami the case received disproportionate coverage; "journalists" and the local media were key to creating a hateful, irrational environment which allowed for the outcome sought by the government. Supposed media professionals distorted events, lied and fabricated an image of the accused as imminent threats to the community. As undercover salaried employees of the government, such "journalists" did what they were told by those who paid them.

They coordinated their activity with the District Attorney and [anti-Cuban] terrorist groups, beginning with the jury selection period and, in particular, to introduce, more than seven months after the arrest, a new, totally made-up charge of "conspiracy to commit murder." A major portion of the trial, and media attention, revolved around this slanderous lie. The jury was constantly harassed, as they entered and left the court, by interviews and press conferences held by colleagues and relatives of the victims. [Two members of Brothers to the Rescue piloting planes which illegally entered Cuban airspace, and were shot down, February 24, 1996] They would face these again at home, on television and radio. In their own homes, they could see themselves pursued by cameras and microphones, as they left the courthouse.

Beyond Miami, the Five’s trial did not attract the attention of corporate media. The case was not mentioned in news agency cables, it didn’t appear in the printed press or on television or radio, outside of Florida. Not a single mention was to be found about the case on television channels devoted exclusively to covering the courts, 24 hours a day, in the United States.

How can this lack of interest be explained? It was, at the time, the longest trial on record in the U.S. and appearing as witnesses were generals, colonels, high-ranking officers and military experts, an admiral and an advisor to the President. Parading through the courtroom were known terrorists who identified themselves as such, some wearing military attire. It was a trial with international relations connotations and issues – real or otherwise – of national security and terrorism – the corporate media’s favorite topics. But no one, outside of the local area, said a thing. For the rest of the people, the trial simply did not exist.

The case was ignored outside of Miami, although correspondents and local broadcasting affiliates [in South Florida] reported on the trial every day and participated enthusiastically in the media frenzy that overtook the city.

This ironclad censorship allowed local authorities to protect terrorists with incredible impunity and to unjustly, cruelly, punish five men who had heroically confronted these terrorists, unarmed, without hurting anyone. The prosecutor never concealed the fact that this was his objective. He spelled it out, many times, as the court transcripts show, with no concern whatsoever, since he could count on the absolute silence of the corporate media. He knew that the public doesn’t usually read court transcripts, or attend court sessions, but relies on news reports to find out what is occurring.

On the other hand, members of the jury, every day for over six months, saw how the prosecutors chatted amicably in the courtroom with witnesses who boasted of their membership in violent organizations and careers as terrorists. They listened to the fiery harangues of some and the threatening lectures of others. Once they were home with their families, the same images accosted them. The faces and voices were well-known.

The same media had just recently defied the government and threatened to burn the city down when a six-year-old boy, Elián González, was kidnapped. The jury remembered that no one had been punished, or even brought to court. They had witnessed this outrageous impunity and feared it would be repeated and be directed toward them, if they did not render the verdict demanded by the mob. Members of the jury said this many times when they were interviewed during the jury selection process. They were afraid..

And this fear increased later, as the months went by. It increased, even more, every time "journalists" pursued them with spotlights and micrphones. Jury members complained many times and the Judge acknowledged that their complaints were well-founded. But everything continued just the same.

The prosecution repeated, over and over, that the jury had a serious responsibility, that nothing less than the survival of the United States, and of the community watching, was depending on them.

They were afraid and they felt abandoned. Not one voice was heard in the local media defending them or calling for calm and prudence. The jury wanted, more than anything else, to end the cursed trial, go home and be forgotten.