The Guardian's Anti USA Bias

[adios]

Here's an example, in a post by nicky awhile back he posted an article basically insuating that USA subsidies to it's farmers were killing the African agricultural industry. nicky has acknowledged that indeed the Euro Zone heavily subsidizes it's agrigricultural industry. Here's a link to the reprint of the Guardian article:

Post containing the reprint (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=262720&page=&view=&sb =5&o=)

I think it's fair to say that this link provides a different perspective

Stop the Dumping (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/31dumping/31dumping.pdf)

An example that is typical of biased reporting.

[nicky g]

Tom,

I think it's a little unfair to condemn them as biased on the basis of one article. At that time many people, including Oxfam, were criticising Bush on that deal, but in general the Guardian reports dumping and unfair trade on both sides of the pond. Here's a recent leader article from it condeming both sides:

Kicking the subsidies

Third world farmers need a fair deal

Leader
Monday August 18, 2003
The Guardian

Developing countries are about to be sold down the river again and hardly anyone seems to care enough to do anything about it. It is now only a few weeks before the crucial World Trade Organisation (WTO) trade talks open in Cancun, Mexico, but they have become so bogged down in complexity and international stitch-ups (like last week's deal between the US and the EU) that real progress is unlikely. The risk of a walk-out by developing countries grows daily.
Let's get back to basics. Giving subsidies to farmers was a brilliant idea that transformed the food shortages after the second world war into a surplus. But it has grown into an institutionalised nightmare preventing developing countries from fulfilling their potential in one of the few areas where they enjoy a natural advantage - agriculture. Europe and the US are the main culprits. It is economic and social madness for Europe to be growing, for instance, subsidised sugar beet when its average cost of production is more than double that of efficient exporters such as Brazil and Zambia. It is only possible thanks to ludicrous subsidies, including protective tariffs of up to 140%. As Kevin Watkins of Oxfam says: "The $1.6bn a year the EU gives to the sugar barons of East Anglia and the Paris Basin generates surpluses that deprive countries such as Thailand and Malawi of markets. Mozambique loses almost as much as a result of EU sugar policy as it gets in European aid."

The US is no better. America's 25,000 cotton farmers received more than $3bn in subsidies last year, equivalent to 100% of the market value of cotton output. This works out at a staggering subsidy of $230 an acre. West Africa, one of the mostdeprived places on earth, happens to be one of the most efficient cotton producers, with an estimated 11 million people dependent on cotton as their main source of income. But it can't compete with subsidised products from the US, which has 40% of world exports. If subsidies were removed, West Africa, according to IMF figures, could produce profitably at two thirds of US production costs.

In this context it is premature to welcome last week's alleged breakthrough in negotiations between the US and Europe, which is regarded by Oxfam and others as reneging on the WTO aim to eliminate export subsidies. A joint commitment to cap the amount of direct payments to farmers to 5% of output sounds good. But it ignores the fact that there has been a parallel explosion of payments linked to other factors such as land ownership or past production levels. This merely preserves the featherbedding in a form less under the control of the WTO. Under this category comes the $180bn increase in spending on export credits and food aid by the Bush administration, which is regarded by fair trade lobbies as disguised dumping.

There is only one way to deal with this. Make it simple and effective. Abolish all agricultural subsidies so that every proposed reform doesn't generate new escape routes that negate its primary purpose. To this end, the Guardian is starting a new website today, aimed at kicking into oblivion all agricultural subsidies (http://kickaas.typepad.com). This is one of those rare topics that unites right and left. It is also one of the few remaining free lunches in economics from which practically everyone gains. It would galvanise developing countries' agriculture while freeing more than $300bn currently being spent by governments - over $200 per capita - every year on subsidies for other purposes. There will inevitably be transitional problems for some western farmers but nothing like the structural change other industries have experienced. And in the long run it will be of benefit to them, too. They will be able to grow crops they are good at rather than those attracting subsidies. All that the developing countries are seeking is a level playing field on which to compete. Is that too much to ask?


Guardian Leader 18 August (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1020653,00.html)

[Chris Alger]

I don't see any unfair bias. The Guardian reported that France has proposed that EU and the US ban or curtail agricultural subsidies -- "dumping" -- in order to benefit Africa, as Oxfam would like, but the U.S. refused to consider it (and in fact has recently made them much worse, increasing ag subsidies by 70%). So while Oxfam is right to criticize the EU, at least the Europeans say they are willing to do something about it, while the U.S. typically refuses to compromise. Notably, Oxfam's indictment of France's stalling tactics at the Brussels summit occurred after the U.S. refused to consider France's prior willingness to compromise.

I notice that you cite Oxfam Briefing Paper 31, direct against the EU, while omitting that Oxfam Briefing Paper 30 (http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pdfs/pp020925_cotton.pdf), entitled "Cultivating Poverty, The Impact of U.S. Cotton Subsidies on Africa," makes many of same points the Guardian does, although more forcefully: "The injury [caused by U.S. subsidies] is every bit as real as the damage caused by a drought, by bad national policies, or by corruption – and it is being inflicted on some of the world’s poorest people by its wealthiest nation. Cotton subsidies in the US – amounting to $3.9bn in 2001/02 – have been the single biggest force driving down world prices."

Oxfam, however, unfairly implies that the "wealthiest nation" is the culprit, when in fact it is only a small group of wealthy "rich from welfare" farmers and ag companies that benefit.

So according to Oxfam, in the case of cotton the U.S. has a much worse effect on Africa than the EU.

Moreover, if I recall correctly I cited a Wall Street Journal article about cotton subsidies that made the same points. Does this mean that the Wall Street Journal is guilty of an unfair bias against the U.S.?

Let's also straighten out this nonsense about "bias." Every article that makes a point has a "bias" toward the point it is making to the exclusion of all other points. Bias is everywhere and unavoidable. Bias is good.

Bias is problematic only when it's unfair or unreasonable. But in those cases the point or argument is factually deficient or illogical, period. Whether the cause is bias is interesting only if we want to consider the motives or agenda of the author. Conservatives like to insinuate that there's some sort of "liberal media" unfair bias, but when asked to explain how behemoth media conglomerates and their shareholders could be incubators and propagandists for liberalism -- or worse -- the answer is always stony silence.

Conservatives -- the retail consumer types, not the propagandists that pander to them -- tend to hate "bias" because they tend to be too narrow-minded, ignorant and just plain dumb to accept or process unpleasant facts or differing points of view. Thus, everything that criticizes sacred cows, like the U.S. government, or departs from the official conservative line, is "biased" reporting.

This is a good example.

[Pot-A]

The subsidy stuff is news? I'm a dyed in the wool conservative, but even I had to wince when Bush slapped tariffs on imported steel to prop up the terminal US steel companies. The reality is all governments like to carve out special exemptions to a "free trade" philosophy.

At least subsidizing food makes a little sense. Even if food can be grown more cheaply in another country, maintaining the ability to feed your own populace has to be considered a strategic goal, if nothing else.

[adios]

I agree but the point I'm making is that the slant taken by the Guardian article doesn't even mention European subsidies. Basically the Bush stance is that if the USA will eliminate subsidies as their trading counterparts do so in kind. The Cancun conference is coming up in September. Methinks the USA will be bargaining from a position of strength i.e. I like the hand that the USA is holding going into the conference. BTW I really have my doubts whether or not third world inexpensive labor can compete with modern technology in production costs. As far as West African cotton is concerned, the USA could give them the $200 million as foreign aid and I have my doubts if it would make much of a difference in their economies.

[Chris Alger]

"the Guardian article doesn't even mention European subsidies"

From the Guardian article:

"Mr Bush said he would be using the Evian summit to urge EU governments to cut the $4bn a year they spend subsidising farm exports."

"Aid agencies say that while European subsidies are more transparent...."

doesn't even mention