What We Saw in Cuba Shocked Us
The New York Times
Overall Assessment
The article is a first-person advocacy piece by two Democratic lawmakers presenting a strongly critical view of U.S. sanctions on Cuba. It emphasizes humanitarian suffering and calls for policy reversal, using emotional and morally charged language. Despite some firsthand observations and diverse Cuban sources, it lacks balance, context, and neutrality expected of journalistic reporting.
"whose goal appears to be strangling the economy until the Cuban people are brought to ruin and the country is available, as President Trump put it, for the “taking.”"
Loaded Language
Headline & Lead 30/100
The headline and opening frame the piece as a personal, emotional account rather than a dispassionate news report, using dramatic language that signals advocacy over objectivity.
✕ Sensationalism: The headline uses emotionally charged language ('Shocked Us') to provoke a strong reaction, which is more characteristic of opinion or advocacy than neutral reporting.
"What We Saw in Cuba Shocked Us"
✕ Narrative Framing: The lead frames the article as a personal revelation rather than an objective report, centering the authors’ emotional response over factual neutrality.
"We came away shocked by the inhumane effects of the policy, whose goal appears to be strangling the economy until the Cuban people are brought to ruin and the country is available, as President Trump put it, for the “taking.”"
Language & Tone 25/100
The article uses emotionally charged and politically loaded language throughout, framing U.S. policy in unequivocally negative moral terms without balancing or neutral exposition.
✕ Loaded Language: Terms like 'strangling the economy,' 'brought to ruin,' and 'available for the taking' carry strong negative connotations and attribute malicious intent without neutral framing.
"whose goal appears to be strangling the economy until the Cuban people are brought to ruin and the country is available, as President Trump put it, for the “taking.”"
✕ Editorializing: The authors insert their political judgment by characterizing U.S. policy as an 'economic assault' and 'collective punishment,' which are legally and politically charged terms not neutral to journalistic standards.
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis..."
✕ Appeal To Emotion: The description of a premature baby in a failing incubator is vivid and emotionally compelling but serves more to elicit sympathy than to neutrally inform.
"Alejandro, a premature baby born in Havana’s Eusebio Hernández Pérez maternity hospital, weighed only two pounds when we met him in April. We watched him as he lay in an incubator..."
Balance 40/100
The article cites the authors’ firsthand access and claims broad engagement, but fails to include any counter-narratives or official U.S. perspectives, resulting in a one-sided presentation despite diverse Cuban interlocutors.
✓ Proper Attribution: The authors clearly identify themselves as sitting members of Congress with relevant committee roles, providing transparency about their position and access.
"Ms. Jayapal, of Washington’s Seventh Congressional District, and Mr. Jackson, of Illinois’s First Congressional District, are Democrats in the House of Representatives."
✕ Cherry Picking: While the authors claim to have spoken with 'a wide range of Cuban citizens,' including dissidents and civil society, they do not present any dissenting views or U.S. government justifications for the sanctions.
"During our visit, we spoke with a wide range of Cuban citizens — political dissidents, religious leaders, entrepreneurs and members of civil society organizations and humanitarian aid groups."
✓ Balanced Reporting: The inclusion of political dissidents and civil society voices suggests an attempt at diverse sourcing, though no actual dissent from the article’s central thesis is reported.
"We also met with the families of Cuba’s political prisoners."
Completeness 50/100
Important context about U.S. foreign policy objectives and data verification is missing, while some useful background on trade and health collaboration is included.
✕ Omission: The article does not mention any U.S. government rationale for sanctions, such as human rights concerns, Cuba’s support for adversarial regimes, or national security arguments.
✕ Misleading Context: The claim that infant mortality rose 148% from 2018 to 2025 is presented without source, baseline data, or comparison to global trends, making it difficult to verify or contextualize.
"From 2018 to 2025, as U.S. sanctions grew more punitive, Cuba’s once-impressive infant mortality rate skyrocketed by 148 percent."
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: The authors reference visits by agricultural secretaries from both red and blue states, adding some policy context and bipartisan relevance.
"Several agricultural secretaries of both red and blue states have visited the island to explore opportunities to export U.S. agricultural products to Cuba..."
US foreign policy framed as hostile and aggressive toward Cuba
The article uses loaded language and editorializing to portray U.S. sanctions as intentionally destructive and imperialistic, implying adversarial intent.
"whose goal appears to be strangling the economy until the Cuban people are brought to ruin and the country is available, as President Trump put it, for the “taking.”"
U.S. energy blockade framed as causing deliberate humanitarian harm
The article characterizes the fuel blockade as an 'economic assault' and 'collective punishment,' using appeal to emotion and editorializing to emphasize harm.
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in which health care, running water, agriculture and transportation are no longer available."
Cuban public health system portrayed as under severe threat due to U.S. policy
The vivid description of a premature baby in a failing incubator and manual ventilation during blackouts uses emotional appeal to underscore vulnerability.
"We watched him as he lay in an incub游戏副本, one of the few in the building whose delicate electronic components hadn’t been damaged by the high-voltage electricity surges that follow nationwide blackouts."
Normalized U.S.-Cuba trade framed as mutually beneficial and suppressed by current policy
The article presents U.S.-Cuba trade as a positive opportunity, using comprehensive sourcing to highlight bipartisan interest and economic potential.
"Several agricultural secretaries of both red and blue states have visited the island to explore opportunities to export U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, hampered only by the United States’ own financial restrictions under the embargo."
U.S. embargo framed as creating an ongoing humanitarian emergency
The article emphasizes systemic collapse (hospitals, transport, power) and rising infant mortality without counter-context, using crisis framing to depict the embargo’s effects.
"From 2018 to 2025, as U.S. sanctions grew more punitive, Cuba’s once-impressive infant mortality rate skyrocketed by 148 percent."
The article is a first-person advocacy piece by two Democratic lawmakers presenting a strongly critical view of U.S. sanctions on Cuba. It emphasizes humanitarian suffering and calls for policy reversal, using emotional and morally charged language. Despite some firsthand observations and diverse Cuban sources, it lacks balance, context, and neutrality expected of journalistic reporting.
Two U.S. House members visited Cuba in April and reported challenges in health care and infrastructure linked to fuel shortages and U.S. sanctions. They argue for policy reconsideration, citing impacts on civilians and potential for bilateral cooperation in trade and health. The report does not include official U.S. government responses or justifications for current policy.
The New York Times — Conflict - Latin America
Based on the last 60 days of articles
The New York Times
