Cuban Nothing Crisis
The first time the word “fibromyalgia” was used to describe chronic pain was in 1976. It can manifest in different ways — dull aches, dizziness, difficulty sleeping, bowel and bladder issues, et cetera. The common thread in those who suffer from fibromyalgia, however, is that nobody knows what causes it. Similarly, beginning in 2016, American ambassadors and foreign service members abroad — particularly CIA agents — began experiencing a fibromyalgia of their own. Named after the Cuban city where sufferers first reported experiencing the illness, Havana syndrome, like fibromyalgia, manifests in various ways. Some diplomats report throbbing headaches, others report vertigo, and others report fatigue. One of the main differences between fibromyalgia and Havana syndrome, however, is that fibromyalgia acts as a sort of catchall term for any chronic pain whose origins are unknown. This is as opposed to Havana syndrome which, as reported by reputable outlets like the BBC, is caused by the Cuban government blasting hotel rooms with sonic attacks, or maybe the Russian government covertly microwaving the agents abroad, or perhaps the Chinese are doing it. One thing, however, is certain: Havana syndrome is a real disease caused by attacks from former Cold War enemies using technology, which does not actually exist. And another possibility which, according to mainstream media, can be categorically ruled out; the CIA is absolutely not making it up.
Nowhere is the media’s genuflecting to the CIA’s explanation of Havana syndrome clearer than a recent article from new media company Puck News. Written by New Yorker and Atlantic veteran Julia Ioffe, the article functions to breathlessly reinforce CIA talking points, misrepresent data, and confirm the preconceived notions held by its author. Ioffe begins the piece by focusing on her conversation with Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA agent she previously wrote about for GQ in an article about Havana syndrome. Ioffe writes the following about Polymeropoulos: “I couldn’t square two things: Marc’s retirement and his age. He had just turned 50, and, by his own account, he had been on the up-and-up at the CIA. Why had he left so soon?” Putting aside Ioffe’s poor writing (either she meant up-and-coming rather than up-and-up, in which case she is referring to a 50 year old man as a rising star, or she did in fact mean up-and-up, in which case “by his own account, he had been on the up-and-up” means she is taking a CIA agent at his word that he is honest), if she did an ounce of research she would find that it is quite easy to square Marc’s retirement and his age: Marc Polymeropoulos retired at 50 after 26 years of service, and to retire from the CIA with a pension and full benefits you must be at least 50 years old with 20 years of service. What Ioffe could not square is why someone who qualifies for a pension might retire. The answer Polymeropoulos offers, however, is of course he could not physically perform the job anymore after coming down with Havana syndrome. Ioffe takes this explanation at face value and without question — and why wouldn’t she? As we know, by his own account he was on the up-and-up.
Ioffe’s entire Puck News article is fueled by this formula of feigned intellectual curiosity followed by unquestioning acceptance of the CIA explanation. Nearly every single assertion she makes (all of which are anonymously sourced) can and should be responded to by the reader with “who said that and why should we believe them?” Ioffe, who presumably knows the answer to the first question and chooses not to answer it, never once asks the second. One example of this is her citation of Andrea Mitchell’s discussion with a diplomat for the Department of Commerce who believes she suffered a Havana syndrome attack in China. According to the diplomat she was not the only victim of the attack: her dogs fell ill as well. “If people could be accused of faking it,” Ioffe writes, “surely the dogs couldn’t be.” This would be an astute observation if 1) consuming unfamiliar food and water did not regularly cause living creatures to become sick, or 2) there were any evidence the dogs were sick beyond a claim made by someone who, by Ioffe’s own admission, could be accused of faking it. Time and time again Ioffe uncritically accepts unverifiable claims from agents of an organization whose duties necessitate deception. She reports that attacks have been happening more frequently, targeting more senior CIA officials, spreading to more places (none of which are or have anything to do with Russia), that Walter Reed Medical Center is so overwhelmed with Havana syndrome victims that they are now turning them away, that there are more FSB agents in the United States than there are CIA agents in Russia (which, on its face, is impossible to verify), and that Russian FSB agents were at the location of one attack. Never once does she name a source for any of these claims (apart from the last, her source being the CIA), nor does she acknowledge that the evidence that the weapons technology necessary for the attacks even exists ends at ‘Russia has tested similar things.’
The most frustrating thing about Ioffe’s writing, though, is her willingness to misrepresent what experts have said in service of her preconceived notions. Taking what the CIA says at face value, while bad reporting, is one thing — outright lying is another. Ioffe writes the following:
… a report from the National Academy of Sciences, which had been commissioned by the State Department to investigate Havana Syndrome, concluded that the syndrome was real and “unlike any disorder reported in the neurological or general medical literature.” It also said that mass psychosis was an unlikely cause and pointed to directed energy, specifically pulsed microwaves, as the most plausible cause of the symptoms.
It should come as no surprise that, like tobacco industry funded studies that concluded cigarettes are healthy, the State Department commissioned study concluded that the State Department’s explanation is the most plausible. However, two false claims stand out: nowhere do the authors of the study say “that mass psychosis was an unlikely cause,” but instead write that they were not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause of the events in Cuba or elsewhere.” That’s much different!
The problem with Ioffe writing about Havana syndrome this way is that she is just uncurious (although that is also true), its’ that she is a reporter approaching the subject of her reporting with preconceived notions. She writes “I always suspected that these illnesses were the product of deliberate attacks and that the Russian government was behind them — it was exactly the kind of weird thing they’d be both into and capable of.” Instead of trying to find the truth or investigating further, she takes at face value what those in power tell her and that’s that. She is like if an alchemist stopped short of trying to turn lead into gold because a lead salesman told her conclusively that it was possible.
I single out Ioffe not because her journalism is uniquely shoddy but because her Puck News piece is indicative of a larger problem with the American press, and because this problem particularly apparent given the timing: Ioffe’s Havana syndrome article was published just days after the death of Colin Powell and the hagiographies that poured in as a result. To put it frankly, Powell should be remembered as a man whose career started with whitewashing the atrocities committed by the American military in the Mỹ Lai massacre and concluded with deliberately lying to the United Nations and American public to sell an unjust war in Iraq. However, what he will most be remembered for, at least in media and political circles, will be the Powell Doctrine, a list of questions to be asked before engaging in a military conflict. To summarize the doctrine, Doug Dubrin wrote the following for PBS:
Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.
While the Powell Doctrine may seem like common sense, Powell was the first to lay out the prerequisites for war — and then, after careful consideration, on February 5, 2003, Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council and metaphorically wiped his ass with the Powell Doctrine.
The reason Powell is relevant to the conversation surrounding Havana syndrome is because of the coverage surrounding his United Nations address and the Iraq war intelligence in general; in the case of the Iraq War, the press uncritically regurgitated bogus intelligence fed to them by those in power (specifically Powell) without pushing back or raising any sort of questions and, by playing into post-9/11 Islamophobia, manufactured consent for a war against a country that posed no threat to the United States. In the case of Havana syndrome, the press is uncritically regurgitating unsubstantiated claims from the intelligence community and plays in Cold Ware fears that resurfaced during the Trump administration as a result of the Russiagate conspiracy theory (which was also pushed by mainstream media and proved to be bogus). While the motivations for the intelligence are clear — in both instances, people in power want to gain political influence in other parts of the world — the motivations for the press are less clear. You would think a free press would thrive in an environment where they are trusted by the public but according to 2019 Gallup poll, starting in 2003 (the year when the Iraq War began) trust in the press dropped below 50% and, with the exception of a couple rebound years that still failed to bring the number back above 50%, has steadily declined.
While the press kowtows to those in power, they malign those who break from the pack. Take, for example, Wikileaks and their leaking of the DNC emails during the 2016 election. Virtually all coverage by outlets that are not explicitly conservative covered the leak as an effort to subvert the Democratic party. Wikileaks was the villain, because Wikileaks exposed the party’s behind-the-scenes mechanics — never mind the fact that those mechanics were operating in such a way as to favor one of the party’s candidates over another. The motivations for the media, I suspect, are business related. Firstly, as media is consolidated, ownership’s interest lies less in keeping the trust of the public by doing good journalism and more in allowing the media outlet to function as a propaganda arm that operates to sway public influence in order to benefit ownership’s entire portfolio. For example, if Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos stands to make more money through increased American economic influence in foreign countries than he stands to lose by angry readers unsubscribing, that is an easy cost-benefit problem to solve. Secondly, as Americans have become more politically polarized, the media they consume has become less a choice based on the quality of journalism and more a cultural signifier. For the most part if someone is watching Fox News they are not doing so because Fox News does good journalism, they do so because they are conservative, conservatives watch Fox News, and therefore they watch Fox News. Now that media consumption is part of one’s identity, media companies face no financial risk if they offer shotty journalism; nobody who is watching Fox News is going to switch to MSNBC no matter how much Tucker Carlson talks about critical race theory and nobody who watches MSNBC is going to switch to Fox News because Rachel Maddow put all her eggs in the Russiagate basket. In fact, sensationalist news stories like Havana syndrome offer a unique opportunity for liberal leaning outlets: a sensationalist story that grips the viewers minds and portrays the Trump demonized intelligence agencies as victims. Even if the influence the CIA hopes to gain around the globe does not appeal to news outlets, ratings and pageviews do.
The problem is not just that media has learned no lessons since their coverage of the sale of the Iraq War; it is also that they have no incentive to learn those lessons. Doing good journalism requires money and resources and now that media consumption has become part of one’s political identity, doing bad journalism (or no journalism at all) no longer poses a financial risk. When the outlets have no incentive to cover the powerful critically and journalists see the repercussions faced by people like Julian Assange and (allegedly) Michael Hastings for doing that journalistic duty, the American people are left in the dark which naturally leads to distrust of the media, government, and anyone else operating the levers of power. None of this will change until the incentive structures do, and there are no signs that will happen anytime soon.
