Wednesday's story by Katharine Seelye, "Miami Publisher Steps Down Over Payments to Reporters," features an unintentional laugh line as it tries to distinguish between proper journalism and the "partisan" rantings of a Cuban-American newspaper in Miami that actually criticizes Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
"The publisher of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, its Spanish-language sister paper, resigned yesterday, saying he had lost control of his newsrooms over a growing controversy involving payments from the Bush administration to some reporters of El Nuevo Herald for their commentary broadcast on the anti-Castro outlets Radio and TV Martí."
"The publisher, Jesús Díaz Jr., had fired two staff reporters and discontinued the services of a third, who is a freelancer. But in a surprising reversal in his resignation letter, Mr. Díaz invited the three back yesterday, saying the policy against accepting payment for such appearances had been ambiguous and enforced selectively....His announcement reignited a fierce debate within the two newsrooms, raising fundamental questions about the role of journalists, particularly in what could be propaganda and with respect to Fidel Castro. While The Herald is a traditional American newspaper that prizes neutrality, El Nuevo Herald tends toward partisanship, especially against Mr. Castro. The firings had a unleashed an outcry among some Cuban-Americans in Miami who complained of a double standard and demanded Mr. Díaz's resignation."
Now, the Times would never "tend toward partisanship," would it?