Re:How Can the New York Times Endorse an Agreement the Publi...
by anigbrowl on Thursday November 07, 2013 @10:34PM
(#6694271)
The NYT is saying what its standards of a good agreement would be and what the priorities of its editorial board are, which provides a clue to the administration about the probability of getting an endorsement from the paper. They didn't say 'it would be nice if the agreement were nice,' but rather spelled what they would consider 'nice.'
But in fact, that didn't happen. They described what Obama administration would like to do (which doesn't even mean they really want to do it, since the administration lies all the time, let alone that they would actually be able to do it). They described how hard it to reach an agreement in general. They described that there are people that are worried about the agreement. They described how an imaginary cool agreement would look like. What they actually didn't is to describe what the actual agreement is or what it actually does. For all we know, they could be selling their souls to the Devil or joining the Galactic Empire and the article would look exactly the same.
So NYT editorial board just wasted time of their readership to say "it would be nice if the agreement were nice, and Obama administration wants it to be nice". Without providing a shred of actual information on the actual agreement.