I didn't see that letter as pro Castro at all.

There was one line that mentioned balancing the theft with the socialism, but I just saw it as CNN attempting to be "balanced".

Say a man kills me to rob me of a loaf of bread to give to "the poor". while that man is pure evil, I don't see it as being "pro-evil" if the media want to report:

"Man kills, robs, to help poor"

in lieu of

"Man kills, robs"

I don't read into the first headline that, simply by adding the details of the mans intentions or motivations, the newspaper is "pro" him or forgiving him or saying that makes his prior actions moral or right at all.

What am I missing?

Cuba has free healthcare?? Wait, do they also offer nany services free of charge?

Did they give the anchors nice Che shirts to wear as well?

Cubans get to see people in white jackets but they are not doctors. Even if you could see a doctor there are no drugs or hospital beds available.

Only CNN would call it universal health care.

Here's a headline for you:

"Good student received Dean's award, co-authored academic paper, in addition to killing five."

I don't think many people would've been bothered by a producer's note that said: "Please note Fidel did oppress human rights and freedom of speech, in addition to being credited with bringing social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration."

It's not only the order, it's the certainty of the statement, he "did" do those good things, who knows if he did the bad things, he was only "criticized" for those. Everybody has a critic, right?

Eason Jordan's legacy at CNN lives on.

chsw

It would be fairer to say, "Fidel threw out mafia run corrupt government, but was knocked back when he asked the USA for help/aid, possibly due to Hoovers cross dressing photo and Nixon's screw up as VP. Kruschev jumped in, damning Cuba to a communist gulag. This could be regarded as one of the top five screwups of US foreign policy in the 20th century...."