On the LAT's front page today, reporter Paul Richter praises Fidel Castro and laments his resignation, or seems to. "One U.S. president after another tried to rid himself of Castro through invasion, assassination and economic blockade," Richter says. According to Richter, "... turning over power to Raul was part of a long-laid script for a gradual shift to minimize the chances of political upheaval. Castro, who had one of the longest tenures as head of state, took greater care than many other authoritarian leaders [otherwise know as dictators] to perpetuate what he had created." Castro's Cuba, Richter says, "symbolized the threatening proximity of revolution."
Richter's piece was one element of a very large spread in the LAT concerning Castro that covered roughly two-thirds of the front page and three whole inside pages. Generally, the coverage was favorable to Castro and even incorporated references to Castro's fellow revolutionary Che Guevara, another LAT favorite.
On the LAT website's home page at this hour, Castro is hardly mentioned. Does this reflect a difference in editorial judgment between online editors and those who publish the newpaper?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment