Right there on their web page linking us to their story it blares. "Lawmakers almost giddy over Castro's illness", the headline trumpets. Later in their story they repeat the negligently emotive rhetoric.
"Another Cuban-born U.S. politician, Sen. Mel Martinez, was almost giddy over the report of Castro's surgery.
"My hope is that there will be an opportunity for voices of freedom to be heard in Cuba, that this could begin a moment of transformation and transition to a better life and a better day," the Republican from Florida told reporters.
Martinez described his reaction to Monday's report that Castro is ill as "intensely emotional."
Did that all sound "giddy" to CNN? A hope that the Cuban people at last find democracy and an end to oppression is a reason to belittle Senator Martinez' statements with the word "giddy"?
This usage of a novelist's convention to denote an emotional state seems so improper on a "News" site, wouldn't you think? I mean, if we can claim people's emotions that we really have no solid proof of as a part of a story, mightn't we say things like "Natalie Maines of Dixie Chicks Loathes American People"? Maybe we can say something like, "Bill Clinton lusts after intern", or maybe "Michael Moore bereft after pizza runs out"?
No, it seems that CNN is merely trying to spin the reader into feeling that "Lawmakers" are jumping up and down with glee that someone (in this case Castro) lay dying somewhere. And we ALL know how low-down that sort of "giddiness" would be. After all, who wants to celebrate a man's death, eh, CNN?
Well, if it's Castro's death... I would.
Call me "giddy" over it.
