U.S. News: Castro and the Oscars

U.S. politics took a step to the wayside in The New York Times this week. At the crux of the recent news was Fidel Castro's decision to step down as president. His successor, as predicted, is his brother, Raul. Despite Raul's proclamation to adapt Cuba to the times and transfer more power to provincial governments, little is expected to change, as reflected in a accompanying Nytimes concerning Cubans' indifference to Castro's retirement. Not surprisingly, Raul said he will continue to consult his older brother.

Another important news piece that has been prominent throughout this past week concerns Pakistani President Musharraf's usurpation from office through--what do you know--democratic election. The defeat of Musharraf's party spells victory for the opposition parties; Bhutto would be proud.

The "hard" news above that has been at the center of the NYtimes was replaced today largely by the Oscars, which is ranks high on the entertainment factor when considering the dismal state of this year's Golden Globes, a result from the writer's strike, which has finally ended a week ago.

---------------------------------------------------------
While I was perusing the NYtimes, a few things dawned on me.

I don't think the quality of the NYtimes has gone down, at least the online version hasn't, regardless of the recent staff cuts. I did notice, however, that the coverage on the presidential campaign went down. While other international events temporarily superseded the election campaign in newsworthy importance (see above), the NYtimes article reporting on the staff cuts (posted by Professor Just on the conference) specifically said that the financial strain was due to an unusually "long and competitive presidential campaign." Perhaps, there is a connection between the exorbitant expenses going into the campaign coverage, the staff cuts that followed suit, and a subsequent decline in coverage.

Then again, the NYtimes stated that the main reasons behind the cuts is a slowing economy and the rise of internet advertising. I suspect this is why the online version hasn't been as affected. In any case, because the NYtimes is still the most widely read newspaper around the world, it would be a pity if the NYtimes gave in to market forces over journalistic integrity.