Besides "hardliner" and "intransigent," another description that will never appear beside the name of even the most abject Castro apologist is — "pro-Castro." Nobody is labelled "pro-Castro" by the media, not even when avowedly so. There is no such prohibition against calling someone "anti-Castro," though in that case you are defining that person by what he is not rather than by what he is: an opponent of tyranny and advocate of democracy. Why not, then, call them pro-democracy Cubans?
And, conversely, why is nobody ever referred to as being "pro-Castro?" How can this dichotomy be explained? Very simply. The media know that to call somebody "pro-Castro" compromises his credibility and makes his support of little or no use to the regime. To praise or defend Castro and be believed you must never be suspected of being less than an objective spectator. The media provide that necessary cover by withholding any information that links the lickspittle to the spittle. If Cuban, the pro-Castro shill is usually identified as a "new voice in the Cuban community" that has bravely challenged and is now in the process of shattering the monolithic view of that community once promoted by a now all-but-irrelevant Old Guard.
The irony is so rich that it should carry a warning label.
Thus, the Castro apologist is transformed by the media into a kind of Joan of Arc who wants to liberate U.S.-Cuba policy from that hideous Old Guard which has monopolized discourse at Domino Park and Versailles Restaurant for 56 years and which deserves to be overthrown so that a new progressive generation can shape the future without being shackled to the past. The media, in effect, are advocating the overthrow of the exile community and its leaders rather than the overthrow of the Castro regime and its henchmen, because, as everybody knows, Cuba cannot be free until the last exile is dead.