Cuba editorial raises major charges

This editorial [Cuba story exposes risks of editorial policy changes​] raises such major charges that just quoting people hearing editorial executives complaining that Reuters was being “slaughtered” or one seasoned Cuba watcher describing the coverage as “awful” is surely insufficient. 

A few examples either on timing or on the scope of coverage, showing what Reuters missed that the others had, are clearly a must for this story. 

To cite as a major reason for the shortcoming the downgrading in seniority of the Cuba correspondent seems wrong. It is hardly relevant, even if it is true - and I'm not sure it is. 

Havana has always been basically a one-person bureau, often filled by a young correspondent quite low in seniority but high in initiative, and I can also give you a whole list of so-called “senior” correspondents who were totally mediocre if not totally useless. 

I don't agree with John Abell that Cuba is a curiosity, not a big story, but I do agree with him that it is not the best example on which to denounce the Crony-Gate Four (or whatever their number is) that are now running the asylum. 

Their continual change of course, for example with editor-in-chief Stephen Adler triumphantly introducing long-form articles then equally triumphantly expelling them for the 500-word format, is indicative of much flailing away on the bridge of the sinking ship.

And Mike Reilly is surely right when he says that making the US domestic foray at the expense of the global strength is a serious error. ■