5 ms·

A great deal of intent is telegraphed by how you say things and the words you choose to use. Starting out with something like "[the agreement] could help all of

by zainny 13y ago

A great deal of intent is telegraphed by how you say things and the words you choose to use. Starting out with something like "[the agreement] could help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies" definitely is putting a positive spin on something which I find a bit odd given the text of the agreement isn't even public .

bendoernberg 13y ago
Thank you. They waited until the 2nd-to-last paragraph to mention criticisms of the agreement, and never mention the secrecy involved. Clearly a positive analysis, even if they didn't explicitly write "approve this trade agreement."
- lowboy 13y ago
  A positive analysis !== "NYT endorses". This is semantics, but I wouldn't describe what the NYT did here as "endorsing the current TPP proposal".
  - 001sky 13y ago
    "NYT EDITORIAL BOARD ISSUES POSITIVE ANALYSIS" Sure sounds like an endorsement. See for example: en·dorse·ment enˈdôrsmənt / noun noun: endorsement; plural noun: endorsements; noun: indorsement; plural noun: indorsements 1. an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. [In any event, the critique seems to be that regardless of the position of the paper, EFF wants the NYT to leak the contents for analysis by 3rd parties.]
    - bendoernberg 13y ago
      I don't think the NYT Editorial Board has actually seen the contents.
    - lowboy 13y ago
      1. Context and common usage often flavours words in a way that isn't captured by the definition. I'd argue that a certain amount of positive attitude has to be expressed before it's considered an endorsement. It can't be just any non-zero positivity. 2. The article speaks of this type of agreement in general, and not the specific agreement that is being worked on. I could say that I like the idea of Toronto having a mayor without liking Rob Ford. 3. "NYT EDITORIAL BOARD ISSUES POSITIVE ANALYSIS" is nowhere to be found in the article. I'd rather rate the article text itself for endorsement, not synopses (even my own).
anigbrowl 13y ago
You can certainly gauge the potential benefits of a trade agreements by considering them in the context of historic trade agreements. The idea that lowering tariffs tends to promote trade and leads to net economic growth is hardly controversial in economics.
tzs 13y ago
It's not odd at all, because what they are coming out in favor of is having a good Pacific trade agreement. They are neither endorsing nor disapproving of whatever is actually in this particular agreement. Analogy: suppose Monsanto has a new pesticide that increases crop yields, but causes some serious environmental damage. I write an editorial coming out in favor of increasing crop yields. If the EFF were reading my editorial the way they are reading the Times, they would claim that I have endorsed Monsanto's new pesticide.
- mtgx 13y ago
  But they are talking about it as if this was it. They may not be very obvious about it but: 1) They are talking about a "good trade agreement" 2) They're talking about TPP-only in this article (since there are no alternatives anyway, nor do we know about the specific issues in the TPP, since they're keeping it secret). My guess is most people will make the cognitive connection there and assume that the "good trade agreement" is the TPP. Either way, I really don't care what NYT thinks about it, or doesn't. What I care about is for TPP to become public, way before they even try to pass it in certain countries.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lambda 13y ago
  No, this is more like Monsanto announcing that they have a secret new pesticide that will provide amazing benefits. Many people criticize it due to Monsanto's track record of causing environmental damage, and due to certain leaks of information that suggest it may be quite bad. Then you write an article saying that you are all in favor of Monsanto coming out with a new pesticide that strikes a good balance between the interests of the farmer's increased crop yields and the damage to the environment around them. Do you see what they did there? They not only blew off the concerns of people worried about intellectual property overreach ("balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property" implies that there are two distinct groups of people and that there is some kind of balance between them, which vastly oversimplifies concerns about intellectual property), but by stating their endorsement for this agreement that they haven't seen (even in the abstract, of "we support a good deal that does the right things") they are basically implying that they think the general direction of the deal is positive. Even though they hedge their bets, they are using pretty strongly positive language here.

by zainny 13y ago

bendoernberg 13y ago

Thank you. They waited until the 2nd-to-last paragraph to mention criticisms of the agreement, and never mention the secrecy involved. Clearly a positive analysis, even if they didn't explicitly write "approve this trade agreement."

lowboy 13y ago
A positive analysis !== "NYT endorses". This is semantics, but I wouldn't describe what the NYT did here as "endorsing the current TPP proposal".
- 001sky 13y ago
  "NYT EDITORIAL BOARD ISSUES POSITIVE ANALYSIS" Sure sounds like an endorsement. See for example: en·dorse·ment enˈdôrsmənt / noun noun: endorsement; plural noun: endorsements; noun: indorsement; plural noun: indorsements 1. an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. [In any event, the critique seems to be that regardless of the position of the paper, EFF wants the NYT to leak the contents for analysis by 3rd parties.]
  - bendoernberg 13y ago
    I don't think the NYT Editorial Board has actually seen the contents.
  - lowboy 13y ago
    1. Context and common usage often flavours words in a way that isn't captured by the definition. I'd argue that a certain amount of positive attitude has to be expressed before it's considered an endorsement. It can't be just any non-zero positivity. 2. The article speaks of this type of agreement in general, and not the specific agreement that is being worked on. I could say that I like the idea of Toronto having a mayor without liking Rob Ford. 3. "NYT EDITORIAL BOARD ISSUES POSITIVE ANALYSIS" is nowhere to be found in the article. I'd rather rate the article text itself for endorsement, not synopses (even my own).

anigbrowl 13y ago

You can certainly gauge the potential benefits of a trade agreements by considering them in the context of historic trade agreements. The idea that lowering tariffs tends to promote trade and leads to net economic growth is hardly controversial in economics.

tzs 13y ago

It's not odd at all, because what they are coming out in favor of is having a good Pacific trade agreement. They are neither endorsing nor disapproving of whatever is actually in this particular agreement. Analogy: suppose Monsanto has a new pesticide that increases crop yields, but causes some serious environmental damage. I write an editorial coming out in favor of increasing crop yields. If the EFF were reading my editorial the way they are reading the Times, they would claim that I have endorsed Monsanto's new pesticide.

mtgx 13y ago
But they are talking about it as if this was it. They may not be very obvious about it but: 1) They are talking about a "good trade agreement" 2) They're talking about TPP-only in this article (since there are no alternatives anyway, nor do we know about the specific issues in the TPP, since they're keeping it secret). My guess is most people will make the cognitive connection there and assume that the "good trade agreement" is the TPP. Either way, I really don't care what NYT thinks about it, or doesn't. What I care about is for TPP to become public, way before they even try to pass it in certain countries.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lambda 13y ago
No, this is more like Monsanto announcing that they have a secret new pesticide that will provide amazing benefits. Many people criticize it due to Monsanto's track record of causing environmental damage, and due to certain leaks of information that suggest it may be quite bad. Then you write an article saying that you are all in favor of Monsanto coming out with a new pesticide that strikes a good balance between the interests of the farmer's increased crop yields and the damage to the environment around them. Do you see what they did there? They not only blew off the concerns of people worried about intellectual property overreach ("balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property" implies that there are two distinct groups of people and that there is some kind of balance between them, which vastly oversimplifies concerns about intellectual property), but by stating their endorsement for this agreement that they haven't seen (even in the abstract, of "we support a good deal that does the right things") they are basically implying that they think the general direction of the deal is positive. Even though they hedge their bets, they are using pretty strongly positive language here.