I fail to see why you would want to compare a statement from a well known activist foundation with a supposed journalistic editorial from a major newspaper. The two organizations have completely different purposes and missions.
When I think journalism, and NY Times specifically, I always hope to see integrity and a check on those in power. Unfortunately, in this case it looks like a mouthpiece for special interests...
journalistic editorial
Filed under 'unclear on the concept.'
The NY Times is a journalist organization. Although they express their opinions in the OpEd page, I still expect a different style from them than I do from the EFF.
That being said, I also hold the EFF to a high standard, not because they are an advocacy organization, but because they are my FAVORITE advocacy organization. I wish that they would not characterize the NY Times editorial as "endorsing" the treaty when it merely "speaks well of it".
Sounds pretty positive and makes it look like only a totally irrational person would oppose it...
Last paragraph: "A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks."
Again, super positive, up-beat, "let's do it!" sort of thing...
Second to last paragraph, closing: "Others are worried about provisions on intellectual property that could restrict the availability of generic medicines and grant longer copyright protections to big media companies."
Huh? Doesn't sound good at all, but if I am to believe the rest of this rosy article, these must be uneducated and paranoid people... right?
This is exactly why I personally view this as an endorsement. None of the issues raised by the EFF are addressed or even named in a meaningful name. What does it actually mean to "balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property"? Are they so worried about creators or end owners?
Now let's examine what EFF is raising: Need for open debate, need for a check on the executive branch by the legislative branch, need for full disclosure of potential conflicts of interests... Sounds very reasonable to me. In fact, why wouldn't you want an open and fair debate on this? What are we to lose?
The idea that an international treaty cannot supercede the law of the land and the proper legislative processes of the land set US apart in the historic terms. Before this notion, the head of the state usually had unilateral ability to sign a treaty. Wikipedia has a solid write up on the treaty clause and I encourage everyone to read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause