|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: 24 notas y ni una desde Cuba: investigación acusa a EL PAÍS de amplificar el guion de Washington

Discussing Cuba without reporting from within its borders is no minor detail. An investigation by the Cubadebate Media Observatory analyzed 24 articles published by the Spanish newspaper EL PAÍS from May 18 to 24, 2026, concluding that its coverage portrayed the island as on the brink of collapse, narrated from abroad and framed within narratives beneficial to U.S. pressure policies.

The concrete data supporting this accusation is striking: none of the 24 articles studied were produced from Cuba. Eleven were generated from the United States, nine from Spain, three from Mexico, and one from Venezuela. In other words, 83.3% of the coverage originated from the U.S. and Spain, notably during a week marked by sanctions, judicial accusations, military deployments, and messages from Washington regarding a potential “new relationship” with the island.

The investigation does not deny that Cuba faces real issues, such as blackouts, economic difficulties, migration, and political tensions. The criticism centers on how these facts were organized within a narrative where Washington is depicted as the actor that sanctions, accuses, conditions, and provides solutions, while Cuba is primarily represented as a country responding to decisions made externally.

EL PAÍS’s Coverage of Cuba Was Written Outside the Island

The first notable sign highlighted by the analysis is geographical. Of the 24 publications reviewed, 11 originated from the United States, accounting for 45.8% of the total; nine from Spain, 37.5%; three from Mexico, 12.5%; and one from Venezuela, 4.2%.

In other words: EL PAÍS published an intensive coverage of Cuba over one week without a single article produced from Cuban territory. According to the analysis by Cubadebate Media Observatory, this not only signifies a physical absence of correspondents but also influences the journalistic outcome: if the sources, political environments, and editorial priorities are mainly sourced from Miami, New York, Washington, or Madrid, the reality of Cuba ends up being explained from external circuits.

The coverage of EL PAÍS on Cuba, according to the study, was not constructed from direct observation of the island’s daily life but from an international setting dominated by U.S. offensives. This difference is significant: it is not the same to recount a crisis while listening to those experiencing it within the country than to narrate it primarily from the centers where sanctions against that same territory are designed or supported.

Headlines Depicting a Cuba with No Exit

The analysis also scrutinized the headlines. Out of the 24 texts reviewed, 16 directly mentioned Cuba or Cuban matters in their headlines. The remaining articles kept the island at the center through associated names and concepts, including Raúl Castro, Miguel Díaz-Canel, GAESA, Miami, the CIA, Havana, or the United States.

When read individually, the headlines may appear as independent journalistic pieces. However, when grouped over the same week, the analysis argues that they form a cohesive narrative: Cuba is repeatedly associated with images of decay, darkness, despair, sanctions, military threats, leadership crises, and possible political transitions.

This is not just about reporting a U.S. sanction or a judicial accusation. The inquiry points out that the repetition of certain concepts ultimately constructs a broader idea: that Cuba is an exhausted country, incapable of self-response, and whose future is conditioned by Washington’s decisions.

At this point, the investigation raises a critical difference between covering a crisis and constructing a narrative of collapse. A media outlet can report on power outages, migration, or political disputes without turning those facts into the sole lens through which to understand a country. For the Cubadebate Media Observatory, that is precisely what appears to have occurred: Cuba’s real problems were presented within a frame where U.S. pressure is normalized and the island’s resistance is portrayed as defensive reaction or weariness.

Who Speaks and Who Is Reduced to Respond

Another central element lies in the sources utilized. The visualization included in the analysis shows that references to official U.S. sources occupy the top spot in the corpus, followed by the Cuban government, news agencies, and experts. Much further down are references from citizens, testimonies, legal sources, organizations, and social voices.

The data alone does not demonstrate an editorial operation. During a week where Washington’s decisions were made, it is expected that authorities would be cited. However, the issue arises when this predominance is combined with the total absence of reporting from Cuba and with headlines that reiterate an image of terminal deterioration.

To put it simply: if the United States sanctions, accuses, and threatens while also being one of the main sources used to explain the consequences of these measures, the risk is that its perspective ceases to be presented as a biased position and instead functions as the primary explanation of Cuban reality.

The analysis itself encapsulates this logic with a phrase: “Washington moves; Havana responds.”

The thesis of the investigation is that EL PAÍS did not mechanically reproduce Washington’s discourse but rather editorially processed it: distributing it through headlines, profiles, analysis, and reports, giving it the appearance of a neutral and self-sufficient journalistic interpretation.

Cuba, Venezuela, and Washington’s Latin American Agenda

The study also examined the presence of Latin American and Caribbean countries in the coverage during the period. Cuba accounted for 30% of the estimated mentions, followed by Mexico at 20% and Venezuela at 18%. Argentina had 12%, Brazil 8%, Colombia 6%, and Chile 4%.

For the analysis, the high presence of Cuba and Venezuela cannot be read separately from the U.S. foreign agenda: sanctions, political pressure, judicial accusations, military threats and questioning their economic structures. In both cases, the investigation maintains that the coverage appears to be intertwined with frames produced from Washington.

This point also helps understand why the dispute does not boil down to a fight between media outlets. The way Cuba is narrated has political consequences: it may contribute to normalizing sanctions, silencing the impact of the blockade on daily life, or presenting external intervention as a logical response to a society allegedly unable to conduct its own destiny.

A Cuba Explained from the Outside

The conclusion of the analysis is categorical: the coverage of EL PAÍS on Cuba examined during that week transformed Washington’s narrative into the dominant frame for explaining the island. The U.S. is portrayed as producing events and defining scenarios; Cuba, conversely, is mainly presented in terms of crisis, resistance, or reaction.

The investigation does not call for hiding Cuba’s problems or renouncing critical journalism. What it questions is how coverage of a country is built without reporting from within that territory and with a dominant presence of external sources and perspectives linked to the same power that maintains a policy of siege against the island.

Here lies the crux: it is not only important what is reported about Cuba, but from where it is told, who has the right to explain it, and what interests end up ordering the narrative that reaches audiences.

As Washington intensifies its offensive against the island, the investigation by Cubadebate Media Observatory raises an uncomfortable question for international journalism: can comprehensive coverage of Cuba be claimed when 24 notes about the country are published without producing a single one from within Cuba?

La entrada Investigation Finds EL PAÍS Amplifies Washington’s Narrative on Cuba Without Local Reporting se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.