Adios, Fidel

In reading all the articles, short- and long-form, about Fidel Castro stepping down as leader of Cuba due to his advanced age and failing health, what struck me most wasn't whether the reporters revealed their leanings for or against him, but that every article about the event basically read like a eulogy. I've never seen so many eulogies for someone who's not dead! I suppose everyone has the "end of an era" spirit, which account for all the time lines and photo essays detailing his epoch in power from the Revolution until now. This tone didn't fit with the content of the articles themselves, which plainly speculated that Castro would continue to run things behind the scenes while his less charismatic but physically fit younger brother Raul assumed the post. I didn't enjoy that the press came to some sort of consensus to eulogize the still active Castro, but what I did appreciate in the coverage was an examination of the attitudes of the current presidential candidates on the issue of Cuba. It's not that I believe whatever they say--after all, the U.S. has been saying it will fight for regime change in Cuba for over 50 years and done basically nothing--but it shows their tact in recruiting voters in the Cuban exile communities of Miami. However, the articles I read weren't quite ballsy enough to state this possibility outright, and instead took the candidates' words at face value. What happened to the press as a critic of those in power?