So this response says the story is factually incorrect, but doesn't dispute a single fact. If the story is inaccurate, FedEx should describe what was wrong, in detail, and ask for a correction.
That they didn't do that makes me wonder.
FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
21–30 of 321 posts
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#22Besides the call for a debate (which frankly, I don't think will amount to anything worthwhile), isn't this exercise just "whataboutism"?
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#23I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin but debate is better than asynchronous speeches where people talk at each other) Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill. The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately…
Well only if an explanation about how these companies arrive at these low tax payments. It is one thing to say "You did it too" but the public cannot be properly served unless we have a factual discussion of why their tax payments are this low and the benefits to both the company and public at large are shown.
eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always make sense. the NYT would better serve the public showing just how abusive the tax law is because it mostly it is a political tool for calling in favors and punishing those who don't play ball besides being a revenue tool.
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#24Expected behavior coming from New York Times. Good on Fedex for pushing back.
There's nothing less genuine than flat out claiming a claim is not factual without providing proof or even pointing out specifics. It's clear Fedex is deflecting here. Nothing more.
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#25This is stupid. The NY Times, as a business, wasn't a subject of the article.
It's not a competition between a media company and a shipping company. It's a piece of journalism.
Either that journalism is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong they should issue a correction, or review how it could be misleading or slanted and offer an alternate perspective. If it's correct they should stand by it.
In no event does the writing of a journalist, edited by an editor, have anything to do with the NY Times company as a business institution.
To claim otherwise is to buy into a frame that makes literally no sense here. I see why Fedex is doing it, it's apparently effective, even with the analytically sophisticated HN crowd. But this response is nonsense, it's almost a complete non-sequitur.
If I were the writer or editor of the story I'd tell Fedex to get bent. And if I were the publisher I'd patiently explain, yet again, the concept of independent journalism.
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#26Wow, let's get more debates between various institutions, not sure why we don't have more to begin with.
For instance, why is it that the Democratic and GOP primaries never crossed paths? Shouldn't they have organized some R vs D debates before the final two candidates? Or what about FCC vs net neutrality advocates? Kaepernick vs Police Chief? I can think of lots of interesting pairings that will sadly never happen.
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#27Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’d think they’d have their house in order before besmirching someone else... good on FedEx calling them out.
Journalists and editors should not let the business practices of the paper they work for prevent them from investigating and publishing stories. This is a feature , not a bug.
If they are going to do that, I’d expect disclosure: “Your revered newspaper is misrepresenting facts and also does worse than the entity we’re calling out”. Or at least “We also do the things we call others out on.”
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#29I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin but debate is better than asynchronous speeches where people talk at each other) Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill. The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately…
Well only if an explanation about how these companies arrive at these low tax payments. It is one thing to say "You did it too" but the public cannot be properly served unless we have a factual discussion of why their tax payments are this low and the benefits to both the company and public at large are shown. eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always ma…
It would be great to have a few fact sheets sent through beforehand, and main questions published and moderated properly, as opposed to a political high level back and forth solving nothing.
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#30Expected behavior coming from New York Times. Good on Fedex for pushing back.
They can 'push back' best by saying what was incorrect about the article in question