FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019 • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by Reedx » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

mandevil wrote: post #97

atonse wrote: post #6

I 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…

Eh, real-time live debates are terrible formats for this because they encourage and reward Gish Gallops. This is why scientists stopped debating creationists, because they discovered through repeated trials that it just rewards people who have less shame and are always willing to spout more lies. In theory, the other guy can call BS, but generally it takes a little bit of time, even with Google, to figure out where t…

That's mostly the case, though it's possible to have substantive real-time debate.

You need a strong format, with ample time and good faith actors who will steel man each other's positions instead of strawmanning them.

So ultimately you have both sides debating the strongest version of the opposing side. Here's an example: https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195

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

#142

Post by nraynaud » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

Rich people debating poor people's issues, in DC, as is proper. What temperature should the champagne be served at?

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

#143

Post by tracer4201 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #130

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 an interesting example of the recent shift in public discourse from being focused on truth to being focused on power . All speech has both subjective emotive content ("power") and objective factual content ("truth"), and the interplay between them is part of what makes speech effective. In times of hegemony, though, the "power" content of speech is downplayed. Power relations within society are taken for granted…

This is a well written comment, and I saw that because I’m finding it difficult to disagree with what’s written here. This comment is also heavily downvoted, at least when I was replying.

Im open to hearing an alternative argument instead of just folks downvoting. What do you think is inaccurate or misleading here?

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

#144

Post by rndmize » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #61

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.

They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. There were two claims in the NY Times story: 1) FedEx paid $0 in tax 2) FedEx "has not made good on its promised investment surge" In response, FedEx wrote in their statement: 1) our billions of dollars of tax payments whereby they dispute paying $0 in taxes 2) $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy This directly contradic…

> This directly contradicts what the NY Times wrote.

It does not. FTA:

> But the company ended its 2018 fiscal year having spent $240 million less on capital investments than it predicted it would in December 2017, shortly before the tax cuts passed. The company’s capital spending declined by nearly $175 million in fiscal 2019.

---

> And then they further point that the NY Times is actually guilty of what the NY Times is accusing FedEx of.

The NYT didn't lobby in favor of the tax cuts and argue it would increase business investment, then fail to actually follow through - not to mention that regardless of the NYT's corporate actions, this has nothing to do with their reporting - and on top of that, the article is about the expected effects of the tax cuts vs. the actual effects on a national level with FedEx as a salient example. Countering with "but they did too" is irrelevant to the point at hand.

> The NY Times is obviously not aware of anything FedEx did that is illegal so instead they put out a piece accusing them of paying $0 tax and not investing enough.

You are ascribing motive to the authors that has no basis in fact. The NYT is making the argument the tax cuts didn't do what they were advertised to do. It's the literal subhead on the article:

> How FedEx Cut Its Tax Bill to $0: The company, like much of corporate America, has not made good on its promised investment surge from President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

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

#145

Post by dominotw » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

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…

how is it equal footing if one party has to spend extra money

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

#146

Post by madenine » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

Is this the Fortune500 version of challenging the person who beat you on Xbox Live to fight IRL?

On a different note, the biggest standout to me from the NYT piece was how the tax cut effected FedEx's outstanding tax liabilities. Doesn't this set up an scenario where the megacorps of our era can just kick their tax bill down the road until they get a favorable WH/Congress they can lobby?

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

#147

Post by pcroh » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

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…

That's practically blackmail: we'll run this smear campaign on you and you better buy full-page ads to prove us wrong.

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

#148

Post by avocado4 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

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…

> even with the analytically sophisticated HN crowd

Do you have a source for this bold statement?

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

#149

Post by networkimprov » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #134

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…

>the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx

That is incorrect, albeit precisely what FedEx (and many other subjects of investigative journalism) would like us to believe.

When "all news is fake news" becomes widespread public perception, that public is doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite.

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

#150

Post by bb88 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #60

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 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 original pamphleteers were largely activists. Thomas Paine et. al. People argue they were the prelude to journalists.

There's different kinds of bias/activism.

1. Publishing an opinion with facts (blog post/activism)

2. Publishing only the facts that support your political opinion without your political opinion.

3. Publishing all the facts but only while investigating the people you disagree with (not the people you agree with)

4. Investigating all the facts to settle publicly made allegations by politicians or political figures.

So while 1/2/3 might be seen as activism -- #4 is not. If people make the claim that the IRS is toothless when it comes to enforcement of tax collections on large corporations -- finding out the facts is a good way to help settle public debate.