Another fun post, as a follow up of yesterday's entry read below.
The New York Times under Elizabeth Malkin as a clear story line on how the whole Honduras mess happened. The implication of it is that even if Zelaya is forced back upon Honduras he will find a united Congress and Courts and would likely be impeached anyway. She did not write that but any thoughtful leader should conclude that. In other words, the fat lady is far from singing yet.
The Washington Post under Forero and Booth is more emotional and come in late in throwing some indications on why it all happened. They still mention it but the effect is more in favor of Zelaya whereas the NYT piece is a model of objectivity. However there is something that the Post gives us, the Chavez factor, including the right perception that Chavez is going to make the best of it.
At the Wall Street Journal Maria Anastasia O'Grady makes no bones about where her sympathies lie. She is not troubled at all and along the way blasts Hillary Clinton. Insulza and Chavez of course also get their due.
The BBC does a fair job of reporting both sides and adds this very interesting comment: "But Hondurans say there is a total lack of information about what has happened to their country and their president, our correspondent adds." I guess that Lula is one of the victims of this lack of information as per his rather intemperate reactions as reported by the Guardian.
The Guardian through Rory Carroll starts stressing that there were protests in Tegucigalpa but later admits that they were not very large. In fact, further down the Guardian is the only one reporting that Zelaya ratings were in the 30% in the weeks preceding the coup. Interesting, no? Ah, that lack of information about banana republics, literally...
Of course I had to end this press review with the Miami Herald who gives two articles, as we should have expected. In its first piece, which follows what happens elsewhere we still notice that even Zelaya's party opposed him on the referendum he proposed. The Herald also bothers in printing that according to Chavez Venezuela's ambassador was beaten up and left on the side of the road. I have not read this from any trustworthy source, but assuming it is true I must congratulate Chavez to have made Venezuelan ambassadors as unpopular as US ambassadors in certain areas of the Globe. The second piece, you could have almost guessed it, is about Hondurans celebrating in Miami. Like O'Grady, they know where they stand.