Gotta get their cheap shot in...
The NY Times lead editorial today starts out this way:

The world's attention should be focused on the World Trade Organization's meeting at Cancun this week for reasons having nothing to do with the anti-globalization protests. The protesters will be trying to be as colorful and disruptive as they were when the W.T.O. met in Seattle in 1999, but their role is marginal.

Surprisingly, the article then goes on to make one of the same arguments that the protesters will be making: that subsidies for agriculture in the US and Europe are destroying the ability of farmers in third-world countries to survive. And that's really what so-called "free trade" is all about--it's really "free exploitation" of the poor by the rich. And I think that the protesters in Seattle played a major, not marginal, role in raising the public consciousness about the issue to the point where the "newspaper of record" is willing to attack a criminal policy which has been pushed by both the Bush and the Clinton administrations. Why the Times feels it has to literally marginalize the Cancun protesters in the editorial is beyond my understanding.