Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

about.van.fedex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 321 posts

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#131

Post by crazygringo »

pcroh wrote: post #118
crazygringo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FedEx is a $40 billion company -- eight times the size of the NYT. They already have equal footing, and are responding right now, which is why we're reading about it. Only with zero specifics of what they claim the NYT is inaccurate on. So... neither substantive nor particularly entertaining. :(

How many people will read the NYT article compared to this blog post? They don't have equal footing.

They can take out ads in national newspapers if they want. Major companies and other institutions run full-page ads with “A letter to...” whenever they need to.

It’s not going to make a dent in their budget. Any notion that a $40B company somehow is unable to make itself heard is ludicrous. This isn’t a mom-and-pop operation.

EDIT: to replies claiming it's not the same or is blackmail because it requires FedEx to spend money to respond... you do realize that it costs the NYT over $300 million/yr to produce, distribute and market their news product? (Yes, the NYT spends money on ads to get more people to read its stuff, too.)

At a corporate level trying to reach millions of people, speech isn't free for anyone. Distribution costs money, for everyone. This isn't blackmail (sheesh), it's how public dialog between companies works period. And my original point stands: both sides are mega-companies that have plenty of money to promote whatever stories they want.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#133

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

appleiigs wrote: post #31
scott_s wrote: post #20

This statement is a farce. They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. They point out the NYT does the same thing, but that does not contradict anything in the NYT article, and has no bearing on what they did. Finally, they yell "debate me!" but rather than proposing a debate on the facts in dispute, instead want to debate federal tax policy which neither controls.

I think it's a great statement. They aren't disputing the facts. Fedex is disputing that cutting taxes is a bad thing and is saying lets talk about it. EDIT: and as you pointed out Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it doesn't control.

> Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it doesn't control.

Perhaps not individually, but a thrust of the article is that these large corporations pay huge amounts to lobbyists to bend tax policy in their favor.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#134

Post by philwelch »

CPLX wrote: post #25

This 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 wri…

The writing of a journalist employed by the NYT, edited by an editor employed by the NYT, for publication in a newspaper sold by the NYT for profit is every bit as much a commercial activity as FedEx delivering packages. In this case the NYT has a target market that is reflexively skeptical of businesses and commercial activity so it is useful for them to obscure what they are doing. The fact remains that the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx. Right now they are in the business of throwing stones at other businesses; it’s perfectly appropriate to respond to that by pointing out that the NYT lives in a glass house.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#135

Post by adamrezich »

wavefunction wrote: post #113
adamrezich wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is crazy to see this as an official statement from a Fortune 100 company. No it's not—the era of "journalists" being de facto arbiters of truth is most definitely over.

There was never an era like that, it's more nonsense and outright propaganda from schemers who want to claim that their own free-style lies are just as valid as formal journalism.

What are you talking about? Few have ever had access to printing presses or television studios. Until everyone had a smartphone in their pocket at all times, global information dissemination was controlled by a wealthy few. Now these people have to compete for the same attention as Random Guy On YouTube #337917402. The playing field has been leveled—these behemoth "journalistic" establishments have to compete for the same attention-scraps as everyone else. "Journalists" are not special anymore, they're just the same as everyone else with a smartphone (so, everyone else), yet it seems many struggle to accept this, judging by many comments here and elsewhere.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#136

Post by corporate_shi11 »

CPLX wrote: post #25

This 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 wri…

It's naive to think the NY Times as an entity is not ultimately responsible for all writing its journalists do. Management hires journalists whose agenda and ideals match their own. Management sets the editorial vision both explicitly and implicitly. This is how all media organizations work.

It's completely legitimate to hold NY Times management accountable here.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#137

Post by IAmEveryone »

adamrezich wrote: post #69
wang_li wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whataboutism is justifying one party's actions by pointing at another party and saying "they do it too." This isn't that. Fedex is saying that they do a lot more for the national economy that the NYT. They pay more in taxes, they invest more in assets, etc.

Why is this even up for debate? Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Why do people continue to put ""journalism"" on such a high pedestal? Like, what actual value did the NYT article produce? At worst it could have potentially negatively affected the FedEx stock price and overall popular perception, for no good reason other than to generate clicks/ad views.

That's a rather bleak, mechanistic view of society.

Journalism provides information, without which voters are unable to make decisions any better than random chance. Democracy cannot function in the absence of information.

Here, specifically, the NYT is contributing to the public's knowledge of the effects of the tax cut: people were promised expanding businesses investments as an outcome of letting them keep all those billions. This not happening should inform peoples' willingness to try that strategy again.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#138

Post by philwelch »

crazygringo wrote: post #131
pcroh wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people will read the NYT article compared to this blog post? They don't have equal footing.

They can take out ads in national newspapers if they want. Major companies and other institutions run full-page ads with “A letter to...” whenever they need to. It’s not going to make a dent in their budget. Any notion that a $40B company somehow is unable to make itself heard is ludicrous. This isn’t a mom-and-pop operation. EDIT: to replies claiming it's not the same or is blackmail because it requires FedEx to spe…

The problem is that they don’t have the perceived credibility of the NYT because the NYT pretends not to be a for-profit corporation.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#139

Post by Consultant32452 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #85
Consultant32452 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.

> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to be honest, but outside of that there's nothing to say that a journalist cannot have a set of beliefs that shape their worldview. In this case you aren't really accusing the NYT of being dishonest, you're saying that their honest opinion isn't ok because you have a different opinion (or…

Of course activism isn't bad. I'm even sympathetic to the particular flavor of activism in this article. I welcome the NYT to publicly reclassify itself as an activist organization, instead of marketing itself as news, the paper of record even.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#140

Post by annoyingnoob »

Sounds like FedEx wants a public forum to push Reaganonmics. Arguing for trickle-down theory is a bad look, FedEx. 'Creating jobs' is not an excuse for skipping out on taxes. You invest to grow your business but you still need to pay taxes.

If I invest all of my money in a house I create, at least temporary, jobs. I push a bunch of cash through the economy in taxes, fees to a number of services, etc. I would have invested a lot into the local economy. Should I then get to skip paying taxes for one or more years? I mean, I'm creating or sustaining jobs.

Post reply on HN