Mediabistro catches LA Times writer Jocelyn Stewart going all terrorist-apologist about Black Panther hijacker William Lee Brent:

Most people would mention the part about shooting police officers in the cause of fomenting a race war before the part about free breakfast programs for children. Because, you see, lots of people seek to feed hungry kids - but not many people go around shooting police officers in the cause of fomenting race wars. So in a very crude, explaining-this-to-second-graders kind of way, the part about the police and race wars and stuff is more significant. So it should be mentioned first, because it's the part that matters.

But we only get to true weasle art in the next paragraph, with the "acts that many also considered criminal". Well yes, in a very technical way, that's true: many people do consider shooting police officers criminal. But the phrasing leaves open the possibility that there are also reasonable people who don't consider those acts criminal. Hell, it implies that those people exist. Which is kind of dishonest, because they don't.

The rest of the obit is all about how he didn't kill that many other people, and about how his sister suffered while he was in Cuba because "Brent was her only sibling". Don't bother reading it - it's saccharine, sentimentalized tripe that could only get published in a world where journalists have allowed romanticized, thuggish anti-Americanism replace ethics. It's like we're being punished because thousands of hand-wringing, soppy, liberal arts chicks never fulfilled their dream of banging Che Guevara.

Previously:
Israeli Flag Is Offensive, Bush=Hitler Poster Not So Much, Then There Was the Time Che Spoke At the UN, They Still Want Every Revolutionary To Be Che