This is semantics, but I wouldn't describe what the NYT did here as "endorsing the current TPP proposal".
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
There is a reason others on this thread make the connection to the NYT's support for the war. This is another "slam dunk."