Journalism or Propaganda??

[rhett o rick]

Headline on the Seattle Times Sunday edition reads, “NAFTA bashing popular, but is it justified?

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=trade02m&date=20080302&query=nafta

So is this article intended to give us some news or the author’s opinion of whether NAFTA is good for the American middle class? In the long article I had a hard time finding anything that could be considered news. And there were no facts or statistics to help prove whether NAFTA was a help or not. The closest the author comes to proving an argument one way or the other were statements like, “there is little hard evidence NAFTA is to blame for Ohio’s economic woes.” and “trade experts say those changes are mainly due to such factors as technology, not trade policy.” Who are these so called experts and where is there evidence?

NAFTA is a corporate sponsored program aimed at promoting “Free Trade.” Of course we all know that “Free Trade” means higher corporate profits, just look at Exxon and Halliburton, and lower wages, benefits for the workers. The evidence is there but the corporatists don’t want you to see it .

Back to why this so called news story made it on the front page. It is clearly pro NAFTA, pro corporatist propaganda. Not a word in this article would I call news, just the author’s opinion that isn’t backed up with any facts.

The Seattle Times is a corporate owned and run newspaper. They don’t side with the middle class.
They supported the reelection of Rep Dave Reichert (R) because he had more experience than his opponent. I guess they considered his two years kissing Bush’s ass as invaluable experience.

The Seattle Times is a good example why many of us go to the internet for our news.

[liberal N proud]

1. Does journalism still exist in this nation?

[rhett o rick]

4. Yes, but you won't find it in the corporate media. nm

[SteppingRazor]

2. What do you mean "who are these experts?"

The guy quotes at least four or five of them in the story.

I agree this story has an angle -- that NAFTA isn't as bad as people say it is -- but I think your critique is misplaced.

The first question I asked is, "Where are the experts who say this is bad?" In the face of expert opinion, the writer quotes a local from Ohio, which, of course, only makes the anti-free trade side look worse, because it makes it look as if "the rubes" don't know what they're talking about.

Anyway, point being, I agree that this is a biased article, but I'd come at it from a different angle.


I'll also say that, indeed, the Seattle Times' political coverage tends to skew in this direction -- as does the political coverage of all papers owned by the Blethens (sp?) family. (The Times is one of the last family-owned papers in the country.) Although, the paper does great investigative stuff.

But, happily for Seattle, they've also got the Post-Intelligencer, so if you want a more-lefty viewpoint in Seattle, you've got an option.

[rhett o rick]

3. Four or five experts? I disagree. The author quotes a lot from Edward Gresser

who works for a think tank. Mr. Gresser talks a lot about what the public perceives and the only thing he had to say about NAFTA actually working is that he thinks the "huge leaps in technology, the internet and larger container ships" are the cause of loss of jobs. No explanation as to what specific technology. There was a short quote from Christopher Wenk, the Bush admin guy who said the regardless of what the people want, we will have NAFTA. I fudged on his words a little.

Again, there was no links to statistics, or reports, or even expert testimony explaining how NAFTA did or did not effect our economy.

The complete article was rhetoric.

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. The Times is full of scabs who crossed the picket line during the strike

I only read the P-I, after all the newspaper is mostly just entertainment anyway so if you're gonna read non-news, might as well read more entertaining non-news and that's what the P-I is. Plus their writers didn't cross the picket line. (I'm not talking about the recent writers strike, I'm talking years ago.)