I am continually amazed by the apparent need that reporters feel to describe the trade agreements negotiated by the U.S. government as "free trade" agreements. (See the Timesarticle on the Colombian elections for the current target of my wrath.) What possible additional information do reporters and editors believe that they are conveying by including the word "free?"
As I have written elsewhere, these agreements do not free all trade -- there are still substantial obstacles facing Colombian doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who would like to sell their services in the United States. This agreement also increases protectionist barriers by stengthening patent and copyright protection. (Even if you think these protections are good, they are still forms of protection.) So, why don't these reporters just save themselves a word and more accurately describe these pacts as simply "trade agreements."
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
