Add the Washington Post to the list of news agencies suspenseful over Fidel Castro’s reelection to dictator. From the World in Brief digest on page A14 of the December 3 paper (emphasis mine):
In the first official indictation that he could remain Cuba’s unchallenged leader, Fidel Castro was formally nominated Sunday as a candidate for the communist island’s National Assembly, a requirement for continuing as president.
It remained unclear whether the ailing Castro would seek the post, but the nomination keeps his candidacy in play, providing a rare bit of suspense in a Cuban presidential election, analysts said…
While the Post culls its World in Brief feature from varying news wires, it could have reworked the wording to more accurately reflect upon Castro as an ailing dictator who’s never faced a free and fair election, not a beloved leader emotionally rent at the notion of leaving public service.
Go to NewsBusters.org for the original posting.
1. What type of bias is this excerpt an example of?
2. Do you agree with Ken Shepherd's assertion that "The Post...could have reworked the wording to more accurately reflect upon Castro as an ailing dictator who's never faced a free and fair election, not a beloved leader emotionally rent at the notion of leaving public service" ? Explain your answer.