Corporate media’s incredibly uncritical boosterism of so-called “free trade” deals has been remarked on many times, and continues to be remarkable.
What else but blind faith would allow a story to carry a line like one in the October 12 New York Times, about textile industry opposition to the new deal with South Korea: “The production of shirts and sheets has shifted steadily from the United States to countries with lower-cost labor. Economists argue that this process strengthens the economy as companies and workers shift to more productive and lucrative kinds of work.” Of course, if the Times has evidence of laid off textile workers’ mass movement to more lucrative work, they’re sitting on the scoop of the century.
Elite media’s presentation of deals like those just passed with South Korea, Colombia and Panama consists of a barrage of unchecked claims: This time around, those featured funny numbers from proponents, who spoke of increased export growth without talking about imports–kind of like giving half a baseball score–and misleading context, like setting the deals within a storyline about jobs when there’s no evidence such deals promote them.
Then you get a line, like that in the October 13 New York Times, once the deals have passed and been heralded as a “rare moment of bipartisan accord,” that “the passage of the trade deals is important primarily as a political achievement, and for its foreign policy value in solidifying relationships with strategic allies. The economic benefits are projected to be small.”
Some would call that bait and switch. For the corporate press on trade deals, it’s standard operating procedure.
Why am I flashing on Jon Lovitz’ old pathological liar character?
“Political achievement” …
“Foreign policy value” …
Yeah …
That’s the ticket.
The newfound “bipartisanship” would be hilarious if it weren’t so sociopathically cynical and if yet more folks weren’t about to lose their jobs to more offshoring.
The Democrats got the Republicans to agree to fund useless “retraining” for American workers displaced by these new agreements.
What???
But these agreements were suppose to *add* American jobs, weren’t they?
How about that.
Our only hope is if OWS sticks around, grows, and leads to massive demonstrations in DC, and more importantly, national work stoppages.
To comment that the Democrats are now as bad as the Republicans on offshoring is almost too obvious a thing to type.
It is appalling to see how the media, particularly NPR, hails the passing of the three trade deals as an usual case of bipartisan support, ignoring the large opposition within the ranks of the Democratic party. In the House, 158 Democrats voted against the Colombia trade deal (only 31 voted for it). Democrats were not enthusiastic with Panama and Korea either, with 123 and 130 votes against them, respectively.
I watched a good portion of the floor statements in House on Tuesday and Wednesday and, among Democrats, there was a loud sentiment of distrust of NAFTA-style trade agreements, several voicing their opposition to signing a deal with Colombia, by far the most dangerous place in the world to be a union worker (Lloy Doggett called Colombia the trade union murder capital of the world). I also heard many saying how these trade deals would only benefit a few corporations, echoing the sentiment prevalent in the ongoing Wall Street protests (Michaud, DeFazio, Karput, DeLauro, for example).
As president Obama tours Michigan with his South Korean counterpart, the media insists in keeping the script. Very disappointing.
Susana Pimiento
Companies must make money.They go where they can do that.Steve Jobs never gave to charity, and his new I phone is made in china.I wonder , how many jobs would come home if corp taxes were lowered way way down?So in some manner they could compete?That would entail making the rich “richer” of course.Something to be avoided these days.How can we make this country rich ,without making individuals rich?I guess that is the question for the left.
Response to Michael E: “Companies must make money”, they do make a lot of money. The CEO wages have increased by 400% while the workers wages have either gone down or have been stagnant. These same corporations do not pay taxes but end up getting ++ money back from our government (our taxpayer money), they are subsidized, given tax breaks (on taxes they don’t pay), but it is never enough, their bottom line is more important than the country that they live in. You ask a question “How do we make this country rich, without making individuals rich”. Well, 430 years ago the difference in pay between the CEO’s and the workers was only 35%, while now the difference is around 400% and up, so who is getting rich off of whose work? In some of the affluent countries there is not this disparity in pay. Also, the benefits of the worker are decreased which increases this dispariety even more. Offshoring is only done for the added increase for the corporate side. Companies in the past were given charters which were renewed if the company was giving to the good of the country, this is no longer part of the equation. Our country is “rich” only when the security of a good paying job, health care, and the care of our disabled are met not by how much the corporations bottom line can rise. Are you making $500,000 to $1,000,000? If not you are part of the 99% who want what I listed, and we get there by regulation and enforsement of the regulations.
That was suppose to be 30 years ago.
Ive written back 2x.Fair has refused my comments
Paux a simpler tax method would go a long way to making people” feel” there is a fair approach.But the grip who works on a film, is still gonna earn 60 grand ,and Brad Pitt 30 million for one tenth the time on set.The ball boy of the yankees and the stars will all spend the same time with far different results.Paul mCcartney and his tour crew will see a wee difference in bank accounts.My speaking engagements, and Obama will see two different paychecks.No tax law will even that out…..ever
Hello just thought i would certainly tell you something.. This is 2 times now i’ve landed on your blog within the last 3 days looking for totally unrelated things. Odd or what?