This Reuters story about Cuba - give me a break

Cuba is paradise

“Heroism,” “idealists” “firebrand lawyer” all are terms meant to elicit sympathy from the reader. I thought journalism was supposed to be neutral and disinterested.

Then there’s this interesting tidbit…

OK, I’ve got no beef with labelling Batista a “corrupt dictator” since it’s, well, accurate. It’s editorializing certainly, but on the whole, I’d say it’s pretty much on the mark.

But if it’s OK to label Batista a “corrupt dictator” (and a similar BBC story helpfully interjected “right wing” in between “corrupt” and “dictator”), why does Reuters turn around two paragraphs later and offer the forgiving neutral term “longest-serving political leader?” (as if that’s somehow laudable).

Why does Castro get “longest-serving political leader” instead of “Communist dictator for life?” How about a little consistency in labels, Reuters?

And BTW, why are they “his” accomplishments instead of the Cuban people’s?

Hmm, wonder why Reuters fails to mention how Castro ordered the summary execution of three dissidents? Did the author think we wouldn’t notice? But mention of Castro’s embrace of summary executions wouldn’t be too convenient, would it?

Would it be possible to not be so fucking obvious with your bias, Reuters? If you’re going to disdain FoxNews at every turn for it’s obviously slant*, try not to be the left’s version of it.

*Not that I mind slamming FoxNews - I think it deserves to be slammed.

Anyone saw about a week ago a bunch of Cubans why tried to escape on a 1951 truck on floats? They made it amphibious with a floats and adding a propeller. They intended to drive up the beach and onto the roads once they made it to Florida but they made it about 3/4 of the way to Florida when they were intercepted by the Coast Guard and reyturned to Cuba. Seeing the whole thig on TV was quite interesting.

Gotta admire their plucky spirit!

Bizarre. Reuters is almost always accused of being a conservative news outlet.

Hmmm, someone edits vaguely positive parts of a two-sided article, and then gets pissed with those parts. Did you miss out these paragraphs when you claimed the article was calling Cuba “paradise”?

I love it when people mistake balance for bias.

I dunno, the article seems more or less fair. They certainly don’t treat him like a saint, and they point out several bad things that have happened in his rule, too (Which jjimm points out rather well). Overall, it comes across as quite neutral, and equally mentioned the good and the bad.

Though I have to say:

…That’s a hell of a machinegun…

That’s like saying fire introduced social differences in prehistoric man. Well, duh. But, it did help in the long run, didn’t it?

Would it be better if everyone was a dirt poor, but ideologically pure, socialist? That’s the author’s implication.

Egalitarianism is overrated when everyone except the ruling junta is impoverished, subjegated, or executed for trying to go on vacation.

I don’t think you will find anyone here who doesn’t think Castro is an evil, despicable piece of shit (altho I think his threat to the US has been reduced to about zero since the demise of the evil empire), but hopefully you’ll allow me a slight hijack.

Did you catch the vids of the children he recruited, replete with machine guns, re-creating the revolutionary takeover of one building or another. Unbelievable.

Well they did mention the moribund state of the economy since the end of the Soviet Union, and that most people are living in poverty. That sounds accurate, and fair, to me.

I don’t get the sense that they’re suggesting Cuba’s a paradise, at all.

GoHeels, care to tell us which filtered blog you got that from, apparently without reading your own damn link?