If you're curious about the quality of the Honduran paper La Prensa, it is worth noting that one of their sources of information is Mary Anastasia O'Grady. In this particular case, they cited her rambling article about Honduras, the FARC, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, and Communist parties.
This reminded me of a recent post by Stephen Walt about things he found baffling. Here is one:
I certainly don't get the business model that informs the content of the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. The rest of the newspaper is an excellent news source, with reportage that is often of very high quality. The editorial page, by contrast, is often a parody of right-wing lunacy: the last refuge of discredited neoconservatives, supply-siders, and other extremists. Do the Journal's editors really think democracy is best served by offering the public such a one-sided diet of opinion? Do they feel no responsibility to offer a wider range of views to their readers, as the rival Financial Times does? More importantly, wouldn't their market share (and profits) be increased if they offered a more diverse range of views?