Media Warning: Big Media is trying to frame trade debate as market pro-

[AP]

tectionism.

It isn't. It's about protecting the value of labor. It's about where's all that profit is going that comes from the difference between the low wages corps now pay at home and abroad for labor and the high prices they still charge for goods (globalism has brought price competition in only one area of the economy: clothing, and I think it's not even because of globalism -- I think it's because fashion is being marketed to more and more people).

This is the debate about NAFTA that Edwards, Kucinich and Nader are trying to have. Because it makes too much sense (and there's no logical counter-argument) the media (and the NYTimes especially) are trying to turn the clock back and pretend that we're talking about market protecionism.

So, beware of media reporting that tries to reframe the debate.

[el_gato]

1. it's about destroying the middle class

[StClone]

5. Destroying the middle class

Maybe a result, but I believe it is more about power and money. Unprotected workers, unprotected environments and basically untaxed income mean big bucks for the off-shore corporations.

[redqueen]

6. No middle class means more

No middle class means no huge numbers of educated people making them fight to defend the status quo.

It's much easier with a dispirited and desperate lower class. Much much easier.

[StClone]

10. There is (was) a middle class yet

The Corps weren't stopped before and it may be too late now that out-sourcing has provided a near unrestrained profit source. It will go on until the playing field is level (ie. we are a 3rd world country) and profits are no longer there assuming taxes, eco law and worker protection are not provided in out-sourced countries.

[IrateCitizen]

9. That's only a side effect. If I may quote Michael Parenti here...

"There is only one thing that the ruling class has ever wanted, and that is everything."

That sums it up, in a nutshell. The middle class is simply an obstacle to their wider goal of controlling EVERYTHING.

[IrateCitizen]

2. You're just now noticing this???

For those of us who have been active in trade issues outside of an election year, we can tell you that it is absolutely SHAMEFUL how Big Media frames the issue.

I can remember a local NYC broadcast prior to the WEF meeting in Feb 2002 in which they talked about how the police were going to be out on the streets to "keep you safe"!

The clear implication was that anyone marching that next day is a brick-throwing anarchist with no regard for the well-being of anyone around them. And they also didn't bother to report on any of the ISSUES surrounding the gathering and demonstration.

Or better yet, look at the "in-bedded" reports from the recent FTAA summit in Miami. If they weren't completely biased and uninformative, I don't know what is.

Even going to the NYT, I can't even begin to express my hostility toward Mr. Thomas Friedman on this issue, and how he has sought to marginalize the views of anyone questioning the infinite wisdom of the "experts" in this matter.

[AP]

17. I'm talking about coverage of Edwards v Kerry debate.

[w4rma]

3. I don't mind talking about the situation using the term "protectionism"

However, I do see that most Americans might have a negative inclination towards that word and therefore the issue should be framed differently.

Personally, I am all for protectionism. Protect AMERICAN companies from overseas slave-wage-labor camps.

[redqueen]

4. Can I ask why liberals of any stripe would be listening to the media?

I can understand right wingers buying whatever teevee sells them, but liberals?

[w4rma]

7. Hello. Most voters don't label themselves as liberal.

And it's votes for folks who protect American companies/workers that we need.

[redqueen]

11. Hello! I'm referring to people on this board. n/t

[w4rma]

12. Yeah but while folks on this board can turn of our TVs, folks who we speak

to probably won't want to turn off their TVs. Heck, I'm on this board and I'm not turning off my TV, I want to know what the rest of the United States is seeing.

[redqueen]

14. Right

So, in order to know what other people think, you must let yourself be suckered by the same propoganda?

Sorry, doesn't wash. I watch TV too, I just don't believe it.

[w4rma]

15. I see the point you were making. I agree. (n/t)

[redqueen]

16. Thanks

:hi:

[el_gato]

8. I am always shocked by that redqueen

Even supposedly aware people sometimes go around repeating the memes from corporate propaganda.

The dean "scream" thing was one of the more recent examples of this type of manipulation that was repeated endlessly right here on DU.

[redqueen]

13. I used to be.

Now I just figure it's part and parcel of the party's running to the right.

If the party hadn't been whoring itself out for corporate payola, they'd have been more able to confront the lies constantly spewed by big media.

But they are, so they don't.

And the results are clear for all who wish to see.

:grr:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. cw kick

:kick:

[jpgray]

19. Both the candidates and the media are perpetuating fairy tales

Just taking away NAFTA doesn't solve our labor problems. That those who are unhappy with NAFTA etc. have been turned into either 'evil protectionists' or 'those who will magically save labor' is one of the silliest moments of the primary. :D

Edwards is right for not supporting NAFTA, but on at least four major trade votes he was *in office* for, he voted againt the interests of labor. Of course, Kerry did the same.

[AP]

20. See, that's where I disagree.

I think that Edwards was looking at all those trade bills in terms of whether they were bad for American jobs. Just becaue he didn't vote against all of them doesn't mean he wasn't. I'm sure that if he were in your living room talking to you, and you were willing to listen, he could explain why he felt it was appropriate to vote yes on the three he voted yes on (China trade, fast track and Jordan).

The thing that's happening in the media is that they're trying to portray his no votes as MARKET protectionism, not protecting the value of labor and the environment, and they're not explaining why he voted yes on the ones he voted yes on.

In other words, they're framing the debate as market protectionism (if you vote no, you're against people accumulating wealth, and if you voted yes, you are for that). It's very dishonest to do that.

[jmoss]

22. right on, AP!

Edwards for Pres. 2004!!!

http://www.johnedwards2004.com

:-)

[IrateCitizen]

26. Since when is the mainstream media "honest"???

Their job is to manufacture consent, not to enrich and enliven the public debate. They are referred to as the "fourth estate" of the establishment for a reason -- they are the propaganda arm of the establishment.

[AP]

27. It's just that I saw NYTimes-think informing DU opinion on this issue

and I wanted to set DU'ers straight.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Well then, welcome to the struggle. I'm quite weary of it myself.

Some of us bear old scars from the campaign to counter the NYT misinformation.

I realize you're projecting your disgust couched in the terms of the primary debate, but this kind of problem has been around for quite some time.

[jmoss]

21. Just wanted to kick AP up to the top.

:pals:

clearly you're an Edwards supporter (or you're waisting a hell of a lot of time pretending to be one :-) )

[bluestateguy]

23. I support protectionism

I believe in protecting American jobs and standards of living. I do not apologize for that.

[jmoss]

24. I second that...

...I'm married to the daughter of a mill worker, and the granddaughter of a millworker, too!!

[AP]

28. Do you want to sacrifice wealth to do that? You don't have to. You can

have free and fair trade, and more opporunity for people AND you can protect the value of labor.

Ideally, you'd need a free market in labor to do that -- people should be able to move to countries where work is valued and shouldn't have, as their only option, a sweat shop in a country where the oligarchs oppress them for the sake of profit margin.

So, without free labor markets, it should be OK for people like Edwards to vote against trade deals which don't protect labor and environment, and that's what he was doing.

[IrateCitizen]

31. Do you support a lifestyle that will destroy the earth?

I'm not flaming here, just curious, when you say that you believe in protecting "American standards of living."

Personally, I believe the American "standard of living" to be the ultimate nightmare -- working longer hours to buy more useless junk that will only further pollute the planet, just so we can feel a little more content huddled in our isolated single-family homes not talking to each other night after night.

But hey, that's just me. :shrug:

[SeattleRob]

25. trying to frame the debate as market protectionism?

This how they've framed the debate from the beginning. For the media elites, so-called "free trade" is gospel.

[AP]

29. No kidding. It's just that it seems a few DU'ers were buying that lie.