WSJ Article analysis

The assigned purpose of this blog was to break down some news articles, to deconstruct the writer's thought process and, most likely, learn something in the process. This article is from the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ is my absolute favorite daily newspaper (Well, until Rupert came along... but that's another story), and with good reason. Take this story, for example.

Republicans Grow Skeptical on Free Trade

As a side note, I want to mention that this story was in the top right of the main page in Thursday's issue, which some may find surprising. After all, isn't the WSJ (I like to say that "Wuss-juh", but you don't have to) a business publication and therefore conservatively biased? Many of my Eugene friends and acquaintances believe this and frown upon me for my devotion to the paper. My response is that, first off, there's nothing wrong with exposing yourself to political views you might not agree with. Secondly, given the corporate conglomeration that comprises the mainstream media today, why not read a paper that is open about its bias toward business news?
Actually, this newspaper is fairly even-handed in its coverage. Yes, the opinions page is another matter. But there was actually a study done on newspaper objectivity and the WSJ came out as being one of the most unbiased in the nation. If I could ever figure out where I heard of this study so that I could actually cite it, this argument would be a lot stronger. But anyway, let's get back to the task at hand.

So, the breakdown:
The story starts off with the dateline giving us the "where" - Washington. The lede then repeats what was said in the headline with a few additional facts: how many republican voters ("who") said that they were skeptical of free trade when polled, and what is their ultimate concern (the health of the U.S. economy). It also gives the "so what" - that this change in opinion could make foreign trade deals more difficult in the future.
The writer then goes on to detail the results of this poll, and we learn the other "W"'s of the story. When: Not as relevant, so he just says that the poll is "new". The important thing is that this is a dramatic change from the results of previous polls, where republicans have traditionally supported free trade.
A little further down, the author quotes his second source (the first being the poll itself). The quote simply confirms the "so what," as does the next sentence, which adds another element of timeliness by mentioning an upcoming political debate.
This bit of context allows the author to shift the focus of the article from the poll (which doesn't provide a lot of room for analysis) to the upcoming election and the condition of the Republican party in general. The next couple of paragraphs compare Democrat and Republican approaches to free trade, and the shift in opinion from the Republican party since a previous poll in 1999.
The author then uses a subhead to demarcate some background on what's going on with free trade deals currently being written. The next subhead launches further discussion of the Republican party's approach to the presidential race, touching on national security, tax cuts and healthcare.
The last paragraph brings the discussion back to free trade, with a somewhat surprising quote from Republican candidate Mike Huckabee that does a good job of summarizing the article. "If Republicans don't stop it," he says, referring to deals that ship jobs overseas for the benefit of CEOs, "we don't deserve to win in 2008."

This article, like many in this paper, doesn't stick to any traditional format. It's a pyramid structure at first, but the extra analysis at the Republicans' chances in the presidential race makes it kind of a bloated pyramid. A pyramid with an addition on the side, maybe a sun room or a pool.
Uh, anyway, the point is, it's an interesting, much more useful way to tell the news, and that's why I picked the article. I also picked it because the ideas in it bring up some interesting questions. I've been taught in the very basic economics classes I've taken that free trade among nations is, theoretically, always to the benefit of every party involved. If Canada can make snowshoes more efficiently than it can grow bananas, and Panama grows bananas more efficiently than it can make snow shoes, it makes perfect sense for those two nations to trade those products. (Actually, it doesn't at all, because Panama has absolutely no use for snowshoes, but that's beside the point.) The problems with free trade, then, don't have anything to do with efficiency or pure financial cost. I think this is where many Republicans get hung up. Why not produce a product as cheaply as possible? Who cares where we have to go to get the things we want? Why would Canada grow its own bananas?
On the other hand, I think Democrats get hung up on the external costs of free trade, those that have nothing to do with prices in the store. Exploitation, loss of jobs for Americans, quality (the lead thing will be with us for a long time, I'm sure). Maybe Canada should produce its own bananas because it would create many jobs, prevent Panamanians from unfair treatment by banana plantations, and keep the darn lead off the skins.
Who's right? I suppose they both are, and I don't know nearly enough about it to analyze any further. The important thing is, other people are making this analysis too, and it might result in more sensible international trade policies from the U.S.'s end of things. Thanks, Wuss-jah.