[A_Beer_Clinked]

Is the fact that the talks are in a "Luxury Hotel" pertinent? The article doesn't explain how.

Would the EFF be happier if the the "Secret TPP Talks Continue at a Reasonably Priced Motel as the Deal Grows More Controversial"

Clearly the EFF doesn't like the process; but this phrasing is a cheap shot that distracts from the very important message.

It's also one they've used a few times. https://www.eff.org/search/site/luxury%20hotel%20

[toyg]

You're projecting a bit of your own prejudices there. The concept of Luxury Hotel is not just about "luxury": it implies good security and inaccessibility for regular people. A "reasonably priced motel" would provide neither.

So yes, the fact that it's a "Luxury Hotel" is important to the argument that talks are being held behind closed doors and away from the public, rather than in public spaces where they belong.

[wfo]

Of course it's pertinent. It tells the whole story. The TPP is being negotiated exclusively by the hyper-wealthy private capitalist elite who have no connection or concern for the well-being of the vast majority of citizens. These people live in a different world than most of the readers of any newspaper or magazine. The accommodations hammer this fact home. To not mention this would whitewash the story in favor of the negotiators, and allow the reader to make his or her own (invariably incorrect) assumptions about where the talks are held; in a public venue, government offices, modest accommodations as suitable for public interest group representatives as it is to high-powered corporate oligarchs. It would be journalistically lying by omission.

[AnimalMuppet]

> The TPP is being negotiated exclusively by the hyper-wealthy private capitalist elite...

False. It's being negotiated by government bureaucrats. They may be doing it on behalf of "the hyper-wealthy private capitalist elite", but it's not the same people.

And of course, government bureaucrats like to stay in a luxury hotel on the government's dime.

[wfo]

The USTR is essentially an official corporate proxy and having government officials act as a go-between, asking corporate representatives what they want and then trying to get it for them is an insignificant technicality -- if a crime is contracted out, you don't spend time making a real distinction between the criminal who actually carries it out and the criminal who commissions and pays for it -- the distinction technically exists but really it's meaningless and discussing it actually distracts from the facts of the case.

They're in the luxury hotel so the round-trip time between the negotiating table and the corporate representative's hotel room is minimized -- they can all be in the same hotel. Government employees don't live in the lap of luxury by any means regularly they are generally poorly paid (that's why they swap between corporate rep and regulator, the regulator role doesn't pay well), it's the proximity to corporate wealth/corruption that's incidentally getting them nice accommodations.

[navait]

You don't influence policy by talking about facts, especially when appealing to the public. You build a good story, and get people to read that story. A key aspect of is using symbols to imply things you can't outright say. (luxury hotel -> out of touch elite corporate fat cat). It's most important to do so when it's a technical issue most people don't have the domain knowledge to understnad.

The EFF is a successful lobbying organization, and would not have been nearly as successful if they didn't play this game. You want to keep the ability to use strong encryption? To protect your privacy? Well, you're going to have to tell some half-truths and make some cheap shots.

There are the people who stick to their principles, and then there are the people who actually do good in the world. You can't be both.

[sillygeese]

They're devising new ways to shaft us, and using our money to pay for a luxury hotel to do it in. So yes, it's pertinent.