Mainstream Media Framing of Post-Assassination Haiti Pushes for U.S. Intervention

U.S. mainstream media coverage of Haiti—Pre-assassination vs. Post-assassination

The American mainstream media ecology has played a large role in legitimizing interventionism by whitewashing its effects and decontextualizing its history. Under Moïse’s U.S.-backed authoritarian reign, more than a dozen massacres and killings of anti-corruption activists and journalists have aimed to silence an ongoing anti-government revolt that has received little attention in mainstream media. Time and time again, corporate media has shown itself to be closely aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests by gearing decontextualized and hypocritic coverage towards propping up repressive U.S.-backed client states while setting the stage for U.S. intervention in countries whose governments refuse to return to an imposed neoliberal status quo.

In the case of Haiti, limited coverage of the popular uprising has been in line with the Trump and Biden administration’s support of Moïse, Washington’s “man in Port-au-Prince”. Conversely, following Moïse’s assassination, a media flood advocating for U.S. intervention in Haiti echoed opportunistic State Department directives for quick elections (despite mass opposition to the current political and economic structures dominated by a small Haitian elite) and consideration of troop deployment to consolidate Washington’s corporate neoliberal stranglehold left vulnerable by Moïse’s assassination. Since the most recent earthquake, the Biden administration has  suspended its demand that Haiti hold elections this year.         

In the three years since the current Haitian uprising began until the month of Moïse’s assassination (07/01/18-07/01/21), a search for “Haiti protests” in the New York Times archives revealed 170 results. In fact, only 15 of these 170 results covered Haiti and only 8 of those 15 articles were related to the protests. This proved to be very little coverage compared to a search for “Haiti assassination”, which yielded 118 results (the majority of which covered the assassination plot) within three weeks of the assassination (07/07/21-07/28/21). This lengthy media absence followed by a sudden media flood functions as a public relations campaign to draw attention away from the popular uprising and towards a sudden crisis that necessitates U.S. intervention.    

The Times framed the current crisis as “a culmination of more than a year of violent protest” against a corrupt government in “the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.” This oversimplified binary leaves out much needed context, namely, centuries of European and American exploitation and destructive intervention, which has culminated in the “Haiti is open for business” model of mass privatization, corporate access to cheap labor, and destructive trade liberalization policies that make Haiti dependent on foreign imports.   

A Times Editorial Board essay acknowledged U.S. interventionism and the decay of Haitian political institutions, but failed to make the connection between the destabilizing effects of constant foreign interference, neoliberal shock therapy, and the erosion of Haitian economic and political sovereignty. American exceptionalism and a paternalistic arrogance bolstered the editorial board’s conclusion that it is “in the interest of the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere to help their poorest neighbor get back on its feet.” Of course, “get back on its feet” insinuates a continuation of the existing Haitian political economy that has left the vast majority of its citizens living in poverty, misery, and perpetual insecurity.        

Since the assassination, mainstream media has pivoted from whitewashing the contributions of foreign intervention in Haiti’s destabilization to advocating for more foreign intervention. The Washington Post Editorial Board pushed for “swift and muscular international intervention” in Haiti. The Miami Herald quoted White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, State Department Spokesperson Ned Price, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken leaving out any Haitian perspective in an article detailing the possibility of sending U.S. troops to Haiti (in addition to already deployed FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials and $5 million in funding sent to the Haitian National Police). The author of this article effectively functions as a stenographer for the Biden administration’s foreign policy ambitions.  

A New York Times article characterized Haiti’s request for military assistance from the United States as “remarkable” and “a measure of how deeply shaken the nation has been by days of chaos.” Similarly, an Associated Press article titled “‘We need help’: Haiti’s interim leader requests U.S. troops” quoted numerous Haitian officials, including Interim Prime Minister Claude Joseph. However, none of the aforementioned articles detail the close connections between the quoted Haitian political elite and the United States. During the leadup to the U.S.-backed coup of Aristide in 2004, Joseph led a National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-funded anti-Aristide student group called GRAFNEH, which was used to “monitor candidates and disseminate information on election platforms.”

Very few corporate media publications reached out to the Haitian proletariat, platformed Haitian journalists or provided analysis from the Haitian diaspora on their thoughts about more foreign interference in their country’s affairs. Fortunately, the independent press has engaged the Haitian people, who resoundingly say “no” to U.S. military intervention.  

Media reform and solidarity with the Haitian people

In 2003, the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin coined the term “inverted totalitarianism” to describe the current corporate coup d’état that has subverted democratic processes and captured American politics. The corporate media and communications lobby have played an integral role in this process. For example, a successful media lobbying campaign netted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which intensified the monopolization of a media industry in which 90 percent of media is now owned by six companies.

Furthermore, the national security state, specifically the CIA, has a long and ongoing history of manipulating media coverage and colluding with journalists to promote false narratives that align with corporate interests. These corporate interests include mass privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization, and other neoliberal reforms that extract wealth from the working class.

An informed public is needed to pressure their government for reform. Therefore, U.S. foreign policy objectives that prioritize Haitian self-determination through acts of solidarity instead of coercion cannot exist while the “free press” adheres to the interests of corporate owners and spooks. The American and Haitian people need a truly independent news media that relays the unbiased truth about U.S. interventionism in Haiti. The democratization of media and the internet is essential for the promotion of democratic ideals as opposed to bolstering private interests and deregulating corporate control of both news media and social media. True media democracy that seeks to eliminate media bias should: reject corporate media’s profit-driven model supported by advertising revenue, favor a diversity of voices and opinions that includes alternative media and citizen journalists, and support net neutrality and widespread access to broadband. Without these reforms post-assassination Haiti will end up looking much like pre-assassination Haiti.

(Part 2/2)