Near useless reporting

President Trump has been the necessary catalyst to disrupt and hopefully unseat the chattering class and their associated fancies (such as DEI, ESG, Social Justice Theory, Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, etc.)   Thank goodness the journey has begun.  

The legacy mainstream media such as The New York Times is all in a flutter as their gravy train is disassembled.  They are adamantly opposed to everything the administration does, consistently bad-mouthing actions and denigrating outcomes.  Other outlets are far more supportive, such as the New York Post.  

What we as reading citizens want is some accurate reporting of events, regardless of party and opposition or support.

Today's example is the US-EU trade deal signed over the weekend.  The New York Post has:  

Trump strikes ‘biggest deal ever made’ with EU: Europeans will buy $750M in US energy, invest $600B after meeting with prez By Ryan King.  BTW - that is actually 750 billion of energy as the body of the article confirms.  

Very Ra Ra.  Seems like a major accomplishment with lots of upside.  Good for the US economy.

Or is it?  The New York Times is far more circumspect.

Europe Accepts a Trump Trade Deal With Other Worries in Mind by Jim Tankersley.  The subheading is even more downbeat:  The framework agreement will likely not do much for economic growth on either side. But it avoids new fissures on other foreign policy issues, particularly the war in Ukraine.

Should we be celebrating or ignoring the signed deal?  The Sun says celebrate and the Times says ignore.  Which is it?

I don't know but I am frustrated by the poor reporting by both outlets.   I am prepared to be believe that any one particular Trump deal may be more or less beneficial to the nation in the short term while in aggregate they are likely to be strategically important for long term growth.  

Is this a good deal?  Don't know.  But is useful to recall Thomas Sowell in this interview.  

I’ve often said there are three questions that would destroy most of the arguments on the left.

The first is: ‘Compared to what?’

The second is: ‘At what cost?’

And the third is: ‘What hard evidence do you have?’

Now there are very few ideas on the left that can pass all of those…”

Forget the left-right aspect.  For any proposed change, these are three critical questions.  To which I would add a fourth, Cui bono?

Compared to what?

At what cost?

What hard evidence do you have?

Cui bono?

In this instance,  $600 billion in investments and $750 billion in energy purchases, compared to what?  How much does Europe currently invest and how much does Europe currently buy?  $600 and $750 billion are meaningless without some sort of comparative basis and context.  Maybe this are meaningfully beneficial agreements, maybe not.  We don't know from the Post's reporting.

Meantime, over at the hangdog New York Times, there is all sorts of nuance and doubt and balance.  Instead of reporting on whether the deal is good for America (Post's approach) the Times is focused on whether the deal is good for Europe.  An interesting alternative.  And unlike the Post, there are no numbers in this reporting.  

Further down in the New York Times there is another article on the same trade deal.

Trump and the E.U. Have a Blueprint for a Giant Trade Deal. Is it Good for Europe? by Jeanna Smialek.  The subheading is Both sides hailed the agreement as the biggest ever. But it will come at a cost to the European Union, and many details have yet to be nailed down.

This also takes the European perspective.  They are reporting on the same trade deal and from the same perspective.  Why two articles?  

This one does actually have some numbers and does raise what I consider the most important concern.

Those are big headline numbers, even if they will be spread out over time. Ms. von der Leyen said that the energy purchases will occur over three years. In other words, $250 billion would be spent for each remaining year of Mr. Trump’s presidential term. That would amount to a substantial chunk of Europe’s energy spending.

For context, the European Union imported 375.9 billion euros ($442 billion) worth of liquefied natural gas, petroleum, and natural gas products in 2024. The new commitment would also include nuclear-related investments, which are not included in that figure.

But when it comes to both energy purchases and the broader investment pledges, spending would come from European member states. Such purchases are typically not something that the European Union as a bloc has power over. Given that, it is not clear how binding those pledges would be — or even how they would be tracked.

With so many uncertainties, business groups were hesitant to give the package an immediate endorsement.

At least the NYT raises what I think are important concerns.  Seems to me that this deal is more window-dressing than it is substantive.  But again, what do I know?  

I am left with what seems to be a large trade deal important to both the US and Europe without any real empirical or objective reporting of how and why it is important, particularly when considering the alternatives (compared to what?), how much it will cost and what evidence we have to believe that the commitments will eventuate.

Empty press release journalism on both sides of the partisan debate.  Near useless.