A NYT article reports that djt is adding a 17% tariff to a year-round tomatoes imported from Mexico. This will send more business to domestic tomato growers, mostly in Florida. MAGA propaganda on this matter asserts that Mexico is unfairly dumping tomatoes on the US market, thereby harming US growers. The NYT article points out that in 1996, 2002, 2008, 2013 and 2019, the United States agreed to suspend the tariffs, as long as Mexican growers would keep their prices above a certain minimum level. The United States and Mexico had been in recent talks about entering into a new agreement. MAGA blowhard and secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick, says: “Mexico remains one of our greatest allies, but for far too long our farmers have been crushed by unfair trade practices that undercut pricing on produce like tomatoes.”
Rut roh! Another wabbit hole! 😳
There we have it, our 'mater farmers have been crushed** by unfair trade practices by Mexico and/or Mexican farmers, but now MAGA has set things right. Right? And, the NYT has fearlessly reported everything we need to know about our 'maters and 'mater farmers. Right?
** Crushed tomatoes, get it?
No, wrong and wrong again. MAGA is screwing US consumers and the NYT is helping MAGA do it.
The NYT correctly reported how the 17% tariff is correctly calculated. In short, Mexican farmers were selling tomatoes at a price 17% less than American growers were selling at. The price disparity is called unfair dumping.
But was the Mexican price really unfair? Is it possible that Mexican tomato farmers, without significant Mexican government subsidies, could produce, ship and sell in the US for a price lower than US farmers can?
The NYT fails to mention that for years there has been a steady rise in Mexican tomato prices. Those prices often exceeded U.S. domestic prices. That is the opposite of dumping. The NYT also fails to assess whether the tariff competitive or anti-competitive. Pxy assessed it like this:
Mexican tomato producers appear to possess genuine competitive advantages through climate, technology, and labor cost efficiencies rather than benefiting from significant government subsidies. The minimal government support (less than 0.14% of export value) cannot explain the magnitude of alleged dumping margins. The evidence suggests the antidumping system is being used as disguised protectionism to shelter less efficient US producers from legitimate international competition, ultimately harming consumers through higher prices and reduced market efficiency.
By omitting these dimensions, the article leaves readers without a sense of whether the tariff corrects a true market distortion or simply shields higher‐cost U.S. growers from efficient competition. By not engaging with the substantive economic rationale for low Mexican prices or the criticisms of antidumping law as inherently protectionist, the article provides a solid but incomplete picture of whether the tariff is a fair corrective measure or an anticompetitive barrier.
In short, Mexican farmers can produce tomatoes at a lower cost than American farmers. The tariff is anti-competitive.
And, here's a nugget of professional journalism ethics about the NYT article:
Q: It is reasonable for a person looking for completeness in reporting accord this NYT article a grade of F for failing to address whether the tariff is a fair corrective measure or an anticompetitive barrier?A: Based on established journalism ethics codes and the evidence presented in the previous analysis, a thorough assessment reveals significant shortcomings in the article's coverage that would indeed justify such a harsh evaluation.The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics establishes that journalists should "seek truth and report it" and "provide context". The SPJ specifically mandates that journalists "take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story".The Fourth Estate's Code of Practice reinforces these principles, stating that "fairness includes completeness" and "no story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance". This principle is fundamental to ethical journalism: "fairness includes completeness. No story is fair if it misleads or deceives the reader".
It is fair and balanced to give this NYT article a grade of F.
😊 👍