11 ms·
How Can the New York Times Endorse an Agreement the Public Can't Read?
- guimarin 13y agoIt's simple. the NYT is and has been for some time, a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama. The administrations trade 'towing the line' for access. Don't toe the line, no access. I hate to say it but there are few if any large news organizations which do the kind of Journalism we're taught about in school.
- donohoe 13y agoI also take issue with this Editorial and agree with the EFF, but this... a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama That kind of characterization borders on absurdity. I'm sorry of the NYT doesn't bow to your personal politics but to say its a "mouthpiece" - especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality.
- milesskorpen 13y agoTheir support of the Iraq War was pretty unfortunate, and possibly leads to this characterization.
- ars 13y agoHow can a newspaper support anything? Isn't it a number of different journalists, all with different opinions?
- pyrocat 13y agoHahahahaha
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago> Isn't a newspaper a number of different journalists, all with different opinions? Not really, no. It's the editor who sets the agenda; often at the bidding of the owners.
- guimarin 13y agoMaybe. I used to think a lot of conclusions I had were absurd. I think the NYT has come a long way from the paper storied of old. Also, and I mean this in the most non ad hominem way possible. At what point would you disclose your former and ongoing relationship with the NYT in making a comment like that?
- PilateDeGuerre 13y ago>especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality. I don't necessarily agree with your parent's assertion, but do you not remember the NYT beating the drums of war as loud as anyone in the lead up to Iraq?
- ryguytilidie 13y agoBut the guy above you heard that they are a liberal media organization, and a conservative media organization said that, so it must be true that the NYT are a bunch of pinko liberal hippies.
- sentenza 13y agoThis was the reason I stopped reading it. You have to remember that "over here" in Europe it was very clear how weak the case for going to war was even before the attack had started. I wonder if Colin Powell knew that he was throwing away his reputation that day. Lately, I have found the Guardian much more informative.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoFor Bush's first term, the characterization is only a bit inaccurate. For Bush's second term, it's obviously wildly off the mark. For Obama's time in office, both terms, the NYT has indeed functioned as a de facto press room of the administration.
- wnevets 13y agoThe NY Times stopped using the word torture to describe what the US was doing because of the Bush Admin. The New York times supported the Iraq War and was the leading the charge for a war with Iran during Bush's second term.
- smsm42 13y agoSupporting certain action of the administration and being a mouthpiece for the administration is a very different thing. Do you think any media org that supports, for example, the killing of Bin Laden, which is commonly attributed to Obama administration, is an Obama mouthpiece? There were many people that supported Iraq War, from many political persuasions. Some regretted it, some didn't. It doesn't mean they all were Bush's mouthpieces, there is place for genuine agreement even in today's politics.
- wnevets 13y agoHow do you characterize changing the language reporters are allowed to use in the paper to appease the Bush admin?
- etherael 13y agoDoing their patriotic duty. ;)
- smsm42 13y agoIsrael just released 26 terrorists from jail about a week ago to appease Palestinian government. Does it mean the government of Israel is now an agent and mouthpiece of Hamas and PLO?
- wnevets 13y agoThe notion that Israel does anything to appease Palestinian is kinda funny.
- 13y ago
- rhizome 13y agoGoogle "Judy Miller."
- aric 13y agoNo, the characterization borders on reality. Reality is absurd; I'll give you that.
- mcantelon 13y agoNYT protected Bush by sitting on their knowledge of AT&T-facilitated domestic wiretapping. Pretty big story they could have broke. The NYT's usefulness is due to their pretence of being proponents of transparency and democracy.
- revelation 13y agoHow many more times do they have to write another "anonymous government official said this outrageous thing [1]" article for you to start doubting? 1: that happens to be exactly the government line
- nickff 13y agoThey have been more statist than partisan in the recent past. The NYT editorial board is most consistent in its advocacy for additional powers being granted to the federal government. You might say it is a mouthpiece for the government, but not the political administration; NYT tends to favor the administrative bureaucracy.
- blah32497 13y agoThis is a natural consequence of the type of journalism they practice. I recently listened to an interesting interview on the BBC with the late french spy novel author Gérard de Villiers. One of the things he mentions is that journalists need sources, and to get sources you need to do favors. It's a game of you-say-something-nice-about-me-and-my-gov't-program and I'll give you a scoop. That's why they come off as slobbering the shaft of gov't officals. You don't go interview some department boss and then bad mouth him, b/c you won't get invited next time.
- Tobu 13y agoThis is more a consequence of PR being cheap (nicely packaged chunks of the article at no cost) and journalism expensive. If the NYTimes stopped playing by various players' be-nice rules, they would still have access (they have enough relevance that blacklisting them would hurt), but it would be more expensive to produce.
- HelloMcFly 13y agoI've found ProPublica to be great. I also really like Frontline, and often appreciate NPR though they could have handled a few situations better. I really do miss having Neal Conan doing his show.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 13y agoIt reminds me this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6693608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6693608
- jstalin 13y agoI think it would be more accurate to simply state that the NYT is an apologist for the state.
- aric 13y agoThey can endorse it the same way they endorsed the hysteria of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and helped pound the drumbeat to war. It's the New York Times. EFF is being rhetorical, of course. May they continue to push this into the light.
- ISL 13y agoIt would appear that such an international agreement would comprise a "treaty" under the Constitution, requiring Senate approval. In general, the Senate doesn't like being bypassed. Is there an end-run here I don't know about?
- snowwrestler 13y agoNo, the agreement will need to go for Senate review, which will be a very long and public process. I like the EFF in general, but they have an unfortunate tendency toward being shrill and incomplete in their public statements. The NY Times here is clearly not endorsing any specific language, but the concept of a well-formed trade agreement. In fact they directly acknowledge the challenge of getting the IP provisions right-- which is the main concern of the EFF.
- thisisparker 13y agoHi snowwrestler, I'm one of the shrill and incomplete activists at EFF. You're correct in the abstract that such an agreement would need Senate review, but as noted in the piece and as we described in a letter to the Senate signed by Amnesty International, FSF, Free Press, and a bunch of others, the USTR is currently seeking "fast track authority" to bypass that process. Read the editorial: the NY Times is endorsing an agreement that the public can't read. If they wanted it to be conditional, they could have written it that way. But instead, they acknowledged concerns and then dismissed them without a good explanation. And the public can't explain it themselves because we can't read the text.
- anigbrowl 13y agoRead the editorial: the NY Times is endorsing an agreement that the public can't read. I did. It isn't.
- 001sky 13y agothe USTR is currently seeking "fast track authority" to bypass that process. So when are we gonna get to read it? After the Fact? Who is supposed to "analyze" this? WTF
- marze 13y agoJust their way of saying, most everyone in the country is an idiot and we recognize that.
- limsup 13y agoIt seems to me the NYT editorial doesn't specifically endorse anything... it just says what elements would make up an acceptable treaty: > A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks. What part of the editorial is endorsing a specific secret text or giving blanket approval to any deal?
- Tobu 13y agoTHE EDITORIAL BOARD (there's a link that tells who might have approved this) claim sources within the administration and put out their position, but didn't manage any reporting on the object of these negotiations (a draft treaty) and lack the critical skills to even mention that this document has stayed private. I see it as similar to their support of the WMD story: quite possibly fiction but critical thinking didn't enter the picture.
- samspenc 13y agoSorry, but I must be missing something - what/where is the actual endorsement? Did they run an article about this?
- anigbrowl 13y agoThere isn't one, but only a small percentage of the outraged readers will have bothered to click through and discover this for themselves.
- pyrocat 13y agoA good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks. from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-de...
- anigbrowl 13y agoThat's the sort of agreement they would like to see. Whether or not that's the sort of agreement that emerges from the TPP negotiations remains to be seen. One assumes they would be unenthusiastic about an agreement that did not include such elements.
- pyrocat 13y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-de...
- forgotAgain 13y agoOriginal NYT editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-de... To summarize: a good trade pact would be good.
- mtgx 13y agoToo bad TPP isn't it, and they will try to pass it anyway. Besides, that sort of thing should be made public, and not signed and agreed upon between countries in secret.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThis is complete and total bullshit. The NYT did not endorse anything. The editorial in question is here (following the link from the EFF page, lest I be accused of misdirecting people): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-deal.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383865633-4qrS4kyZ6fmMiDgkHadqTw http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-de... It discusses the fact of the ongoing negotiations, mentions a variety of potential difficulties, and concludes by defining what it (the NYT board) considers to be the elements of a good agreement. I'm generally a fan of the EFF but this article is ludicrous scaremongering. How the EFF spun this into an uncritical endorsement and thought it was appropriate to throw around insinuations of 'extraordinary cowardice' absent any evidence whatsoever. Essentially, the EFF is attacking the idea that there even could be such a thing as a good trade deal, equating the NYT's effort to articulate what that would be with an uncritical endorsement. It's fundamentally dishonest and has seriously lowered my opinion of the EFF.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoIt opens with what reads like an endorsement - "Officials from the United States and 11 other countries bordering the Pacific are trying to complete a trade agreement by the end of the year that could help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies."
- jamesaguilar 13y agoIt sounds like a statement of the deal's goal to me. Definitely not an endorsement.
- 8_hours_ago 13y agoThat's a pretty weak endorsement... "could help" doesn't mean "would help". It just looks like the author didn't choose their words carefully enough.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThat's not an endorsement, just a statement of fact. Trade deals often boost economic growth and lead to closer bi- or multilateral cooperation between nations. An endorsement would be something like 'the agreement may not be perfect, but it would be in America's interests. President Obama should sign it and the Senate should ratify it.' I might also note that the NYT has quite recently featured op-eds highly critical of the TPP, a curious strategy for a newspaper that is supposed to be endorsing it, eg http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/obamas-covert-trade-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/obamas-covert-trad... I'm pro-trade in general but haven't formed an opinion on the TPP so far because its outlines are unclear. The best summary that I've read on the subject suggests that negotiations are strongly motivated by strategic considerations: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21583995-negotiations-secret-optimism-about-path-breaking-trade-deal-hard-share-trade http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21583995-negotiations-sec...
- bendoernberg 13y agoI'm going to contact Margaret Sullivan, the Times' Public Editor, and ask her to write about why the paper is endorsing something they haven't seen. If enough folks join me, she might weigh in. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/ public@nytimes.com
- 001sky 13y agoI'm going to contact Margaret Sullivan, the Times' Public Editor... ^^^This should be top post
- shmerl 13y agoThis reminds me the quote from the Dog's Heart by Bulgakov: “Yes, my dear sir. If you care about your digestion, my advice is – don’t talk about bolshevism or medicine at table. And, God forbid – never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.’ ‘M’mm . . . But there are no other newspapers.’ ‘In that case don’t read any at all.” http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/918499-food-ivan-arnoldovich-is-a-subtle-thing-one-must http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/918499-food-ivan-arnoldovich...
- linuxhansl 13y agoWhile this story might be sensational, does anybody know the rationale behind keeping treaties like this secret. I could come up with all kinds of explanations like our leader being fearful of criticism, but I would like to know if there an actual practical reason.
- maisutton 13y agoAuthor of this blog post here. They claim that they need to keep it secret to maintain a strategic advantage as each of the countries trade off different provisions that could benefit or harm their economies. US Trade Rep says that if they make the draft texts public, then it will somehow effect their "game plan" against other nations. This justification has become ever more dubious (or at the very least, extremely hypocritical) given the fact that the NSA has been spying on trade delegates and shares that information with the US Trade Rep. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minuscule-for-all-consuming-nsa.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minusc...)
- snowwrestler 13y agoTreaties start off with private negotiations for the same reason that any negotiation is private--so that the representatives can work on ideas and compromises in a free way. If they are able to arrive at a good deal, then they can present it together. This is how corporate mergers are done, for example. Managers meet to work out the deal, then present it to shareholders. It's also how all significant legislation gets started--Congressional staff meet to negotiate, then a bill gets introduced with cosponsors. The main thing to understand is that this is the beginning of a process, not the entire process. There will be plenty of opportunity for public comment. The Korea FTA, for example, spent over 3 years in public comment after negotiations concluded.
- anigbrowl 13y agoSame as lots of other negotiations; the more people at the table, the longer it takes to get anything done.
- justsee 13y agoWhat stunning misdirection in this thread by anigbrowl. In a way it reflects the NY Times opinion piece, which tries to simply characterise the TPP as a 'trade deal'. Any reasonable, honest observer would halt the discussion immediately at the point they realise the TPP is being negotiated in secret (with the public and even political representatives kept in the dark over TPP contents over the many years it has been negotiated). That corporate interests have unfettered access to the text and negotiations and democratic citizens do not is evidence enough of exactly whose interests are being negotiated. That the text and all associated material must remain secret for four years after the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy. It gets to the heart of the sickness of secrecy that has infected whole swaths of our democratic institutions. Trying to guide discussion towards whether people are 'pro or anti trade' is risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at best. The TPP is a full-frontal assault on democracy and national sovereignty from what we have learnt through leaked draft texts, and its contents are highly likely to represent a backdoor check-mate across internet censorship, DRM, copyright, and many other issues this community cares about.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThat the text and all associated material must remain secret for four years after the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy. ^ not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're probably referring to an agreement to keep negotiating documents secret for a 4 year period as described here (by an organization opposed to that approach): http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency-letter-2011.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency-letter-2011... I'm actually in favor of this approach. WTO negotiations involves full transparency, as mentioned in the letter above; it's also true that the WTO has been unable to reach agreement on what's known as the 'Doha round' for almost 13 years now. There are multiple reasons why that might or might not have happened, but the upshot is that trade liberalization has been stalled for over a decade. If negotiations out of the spotlight increase the parties' willingness to conclude a more limited and offer that for ratification, I'm willing to put up with it. Most of you here seem to be assuming that this is the result of corporate secrecy; it seems as likely, if not more, so, to be at the request of the various countries involved in the negotiations. Trying to guide discussion towards whether people are 'pro or anti trade' is risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at best. It's interesting that you complain about this when I made no effort whatsoever to guide discussion in that direction. I called out the EFF article for being factually incorrect on its face and I stand by that. I mentioned elsewhere that I was personally pro-trade but uncertain about the TPP pending futher details.
- coldcode 13y agoI'm going to have to trust the government on this one. Clearly they have the people's best interests in mind. In fact why should they ever let us see anything in the future, it makes us angry and leads to silly arguments. Instead they can simply tell us when the business is complete - signed, a North Korean.
- insickness 13y agoSorry but there's no endorsement of something unread here by the New York Times. You can interpret the Times's positive spin on the potential agreement as a de facto endorsement, but it is not an endorsement. It's as if the Times said that it's good a new Avengers movie is coming out and the EFF said that the NYTimes gave the movie a positive review without seeing it. Disagree with what the New York Times said, but they don't claim to have seen the agreement.
- homosaur 13y agoJust so ya'll know, the main crux of this deal for the US is that they're going to be a major natural gas supplier to the United States of Europe to cut off Russia from it. This is part of the reason Russia has probably been to supportive of Snowden, which would normally be a bad idea politically, because they're trying to mess up the US/EU relationship. Natural gas is going to unfortunately be the way forward for awhile in all the post-Fukushima paranoia/propaganda cycle.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThis is TPP, not TTIP.
- infra178 13y agoBecause the Obama administration told them to.
- kapad 13y agoFor political leverage