6 ms·
The fact that the negotiations were done in secret probably means that most of the TTP content is being given to journalists by those officially authorized to s
by kevinalexbrown 11y ago
The fact that the negotiations were done in secret probably means that most of the TTP content is being given to journalists by those officially authorized to speak about it. This isn't unexpected, but it does affect how the TTP is framed (even if you don't buy the Greenwald puff-piece-for-access argument).
- tptacek 11y agoI'm not sure how this even makes sense. The whole treaty will be public for months before Congress votes on it. What's the "give to get" you're thinking of here?
- jessaustin 11y agoJournalists will be interested in publishing articles about TPP today, rather than a month from now. That interest might lead one to lend a friendly ear to the only people who have actually read the current draft, who just so happen to strongly support the passage of the current draft.
- tptacek 11y agoWhy are journalists more interested in publishing articles about TPP further away from the vote?
- jessaustin 11y agoWe're discussing TFA, which is already published. There are other reports and analyses out now as well.
- tptacek 11y agoYou're claiming here that the New York Times was bought off with early access to TPP?
- drx 11y agoYour perseverance in this article's comments is something else, kudos.
- jessaustin 11y agoThat's an extreme interpretation. KAB started the thread with thoughts about "how the TTP is framed". I mentioned "lend[ing] a friendly ear". How did we move from that to "bought off"? It's not as though NYT are infallible, however, and it is well known that journalists often become sympathetic to the opinions of those government officials, company executives, etc. to whom they require access in order to obtain information they need.