Margaret Thatcher once admonished her critics with the assertion that, like it or not, “there is no alternative” to free markets and free trade. The great economists, she argued, had long taught us that such trade regimes are superior to all others. The New York Times has taken the same position in its coverage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

U.S. reporting on the referendum largely simplified the CAFTA question as a matter of geopolitical rivalry between Venezuela and the United States, and it failed to seriously examine whether CAFTA would benefit Costa Rica.

Recent coverage of the pending U.S. trade deal with Colombia made clear that major U.S. media outlets presented only their preferred side of the story rather than providing the public with the range of information necessary for an honest, informed debate on U.S. trade policy. Major media pulled out all the stops to come out in support of this one: NAFTA, human rights, terrorism, paramilitaries, Hugo Chávez... Wait, what?