More Influenced by Concept than Content Admits Key Trade Influence...

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Tom Friedman's Truly Shocking Admission By David
Sirota

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is considered by the
Washington, D.C. media and political establishment to be the leading
authority on trade policy. Friedman has aggressively pushed
corporate-written "free" trade deals, devoting column after column
after column shilling for these deals - and spending almost no time
actually exploring how these deals undermine wages, job security,
environmental standards and workplace rights both in America and
abroad. Now, in a little-noticed interview, Friedman actually went on
record admitting he advocates for specific trade deals without knowing
anything about what's in the trade deals he is writing about.

In a CNBC interview with Tim Russert this weekend, Friedman said:

"We got this free market, and I admit, I was speaking out in
Minnesota--my hometown, in fact, and guy stood up in the audience,
said, `Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you'd oppose?'
I said, `No, absolutely not.' I said, `You know what, sir? I wrote a
column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I
didn't even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade."

Not surprisingly, Russert didn't challenge Friedman, or even ask a
follow-up question. He didn't ask Friedman why he didn't even bother
to consider the widespread concerns about the pact's lack of labor,
human rights, environmental provisions. Similarly, he didn't ask
Friedman about the protectionist provisions in the deal that make
sure the drug industry is allowed to artificially inflate drug prices
in Central American countries. He didn't ask Friedman why, if the deal
was so good for Central America, so many Central American countries
and their citizens opposed the deal. He didn't ask Friedman what kind
of nerve it takes to go to a state like Minnesota that has been
devastated by "free" trade deals and tell people that he happily
advocates for their economic destruction, even though he is
uninterested in even glancing at the policies he is pushing.

But beyond Russert's negligence, what's truly astonishing is that Tom
Friedman, the person who the media most relies on to interpret trade
policy, now publicly runs around admitting he actually knows nothing
at all about the trade pacts he pushes in his New York Times column.
This is like Alan Greenspan casually telling an interviewer he never
actually looks at economic data, or like a political "expert"
admitting to not reading any political news. It is, in sum, an
admission that Friedman is so out of touch and so arrogant that he
thinks it is perfectly acceptable to pollute the political debate
with propaganda based on facts he doesn't even bother to investigate.






--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --