FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
“There are people around him who want favors, want money, and they’re getting it…. He knows how to take bribes, basically.”
The arguments presented in the New York Times have bolstered Trump’s justification for imposing tariffs on Brazilian goods.
“Trump is saying he doesn’t care about whatever agreements we have, including the ones he signed.”
How different is Thomas Friedman’s insistence that China “let in more Taylor Swifts” from US media coverage of China and trade policy generally?
“This is really an assault against the self-determination of countries when they try to enact responsible environmental policies, or other kinds of policies in the public interest.”
The far-right Modi government’s discriminatory ideas around citizenship have been a trigger for the massive demonstrations, but our guest explains that is not the whole story.
No one should have been surprised by the loss of high-paying, union manufacturing jobs to Mexico; that is exactly the result that NAFTA was designed for.
Election Focus 2020: After CNN’s remarkably substantive and thoughtful town hall on the climate crisis, we wrote that the following debates now had a solid foundation from which to go deeper on climate for a larger audience. Unfortunately, ABC took it as an opportunity to do even less on the crisis.
The fact that trade is a story of winners and losers within countries rather than between countries is especially important now that our trade conflicts are entering a new phase, especially with China.
“The ‘trade war’ seems to be about arguing points that would actually increase the profits of US companies, and do nothing, and possibly even be a negative, for workers in the United States.”
It’s true that the administration is both internally divided and intentionally ambiguous on trade policy and its impacts. But what does that mean for reporters’ responsibility?
A Washington Post essay never considers the possibility that respect for traditional purveyors of “truth” has been badly weakened by the fact that they have failed to do so in many important ways in recent years.
In a period of record-low productivity growth, Thomas Friedman tells us the robots are taking all the jobs. Hey, no one ever said you had to have a clue to write for the New York Times.
Why exactly should those of us who don’t own lots of stock in Microsoft and Pfizer care if China doesn’t pay them licensing fees and royalties?
Since economics won’t sell the TPP, the alternative is to make it a geopolitical pact, with the main target being China. The main problem with seeing the TPP as a pact designed as a weapon against China, though, is that it doesn’t seem to have been designed that way.
Thomas Friedman, who is legendary for his boldly stated wrong assertions, is making absurd claims about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the great loss the US suffers from its going down.
If the future of the free world depends on the TPP, then maybe it shouldn’t have included measures that will hugely raise the cost of everything from prescription drugs to software to Mickey Mouse memorabilia.
The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers on the meaning of progressivism. The villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who, it tells us, “are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive.”
While many factors were beyond the control of Clinton and the Democrats, one factor that was under their control was the decision to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. But none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
