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

221–230 of 321 posts

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

#221

Post by bazooka_penguin »

crispyambulance wrote: post #188
Reedx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription

I'll save people the effort: They create an "obstacle" to cancelling your subscription. The "obstacle" is you have to make phone call and talk to one of their agents who will try to keep you as a subscriber by offering a discount on the subscription. It's a good way to extend your introductory payment plan (or close to it). You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.

Being in the same level as cable tv isnt great in this day and age

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

#222

Post by koolba »

crispyambulance wrote: post #188
Reedx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription

I'll save people the effort: They create an "obstacle" to cancelling your subscription. The "obstacle" is you have to make phone call and talk to one of their agents who will try to keep you as a subscriber by offering a discount on the subscription. It's a good way to extend your introductory payment plan (or close to it). You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.

Also replace NYT with SiriusXM for similar results.

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

#223

Post by wostusername »

matt4077 wrote: post #128
zaroth wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure. IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.

The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone , including you.

I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure?

IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).

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

#224

Post by Analemma_ »

snambi wrote: post #213
panarky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FedEx statement seems like a classic example of corporate deception. It seems very carefully worded, probably by a team of attorneys, to be technically true but grossly misleading. The tell is that FedEx calls the NYT article "factually incorrect" but never states exactly what assertions they dispute. It's as if they want the reader and the media to infer that FedEx actually did pay taxes on billions in profit, o…

Hey NYTimes is also a corporation. IMHO, NYT cannot hide under journalism, and write fakenews all the time.

You're about the twentieth person on this thread to insist that the NYT article is "fake news" but not provide any specific assertions about what is wrong.

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

#225

Post by bazooka_penguin »

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…

This is a ridiculous statement that completely ignores the social expectations of each company. People generally expect reporting media to report the truth unless they have some strong bias (like political), people expect fedex to deliver packages. Deviations from that result in demands that they "stay in [their] lane". A news story by NYT is going to have more impact than some company with a reputation for destroying packages.

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

#226

Post by omegaworks »

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 has a target market that is reflexively skeptical of businesses and commercial activity

Where'd you get that from?

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

#227

Post by jrockway »

drak0n1c wrote: post #174
ryanmercer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The times article is about how the tax cuts did not result in the capital investments promised, by FexEx and others. Drive by IND on 70, you can see the capital investment that was one of the promises of this. Hub expansion via construction (similar construction at MEM). The construction at IND is so large you can actually see it from the other side of the airport, I know because I see it every weekday when I pull i…

Thank you for providing evidence. That's certainly a much larger capital investment than the NYT has ever made. Why is this downvoted when the parent comment asked for proof?

They spent $850,000,000 on a new building in New York City in 2007.

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

#228

Post by munk-a »

crispyambulance wrote: post #188
Reedx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription

I'll save people the effort: They create an "obstacle" to cancelling your subscription. The "obstacle" is you have to make phone call and talk to one of their agents who will try to keep you as a subscriber by offering a discount on the subscription. It's a good way to extend your introductory payment plan (or close to it). You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.

Disregarding a lot of the other shade thrown at NYT in this comment section - forcing people into a phone call is definitely a dark user pattern. You're making it trivial for people to start giving you money while raising the barrier for them to stop giving you money - that's a trap that'll retain some subscriptions for no reason other than low effort and super slimy.

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

#229

Post by jonathankoren »

eanzenberg wrote: post #218
hef19898 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's a strawman argument. By artificially setting the bar that high for entities like the NYT to be allowed to publish stories like that you make it impossible to publish any journalistic piece at all. And that higj bar allows everybody else to just past everything underneath it. A slippery slope if you ask me.

Or, that seeking profit isn't inherently evil? Maybe it's working as designed? Poor journalism will suffer profits (at least we hope). Good journalism will attract more profits.

That’s also a straw man, since literally no one is making that statement.

The point of contention is whether after arguing that a tax cut was needed to do capital investment, did the savings from the tax cut actually go to capital investment, or merely financial trickery of stock buy backs as the critics of the tax cut predicted.

Literally everything else is a distraction.

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

#230

Post by megiddo »

panarky wrote: post #49
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 FedEx statement seems like a classic example of corporate deception. It seems very carefully worded, probably by a team of attorneys, to be technically true but grossly misleading. The tell is that FedEx calls the NYT article "factually incorrect" but never states exactly what assertions they dispute. It's as if they want the reader and the media to infer that FedEx actually did pay taxes on billions in profit, o…

Adjusting depreciation schedules are very typical tax strategies for businesses. Hell, I've done this for a one-man shop making less than $100k in a year. Depreciation strategies are an important part of cash-flow management for capital-intensive industries. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to start a factory or other large industrial firm. Cash flow is marginal compared to capital, but the tax rate is proportional to capital. You can easily be put in a situation where the tax burden exceeds the free cash of the business.

I guess I'm not clear on what detail you think is missing. To me, their objections and actions are very clearly worded.

I believe they pointed out that they regularly pay taxes, that the tax rate for that year was due to accelerating depreciation, and the NYT is engaged in the same accounting strategies.

Accelerating depreciation has no net tax benefit over the full depreciation period. If the depreciation period is 10 years, but they accelerate in the first year, their net tax rate is the same over the 10 years as if they did not accelerate. They are simply moving their tax burden to the future.

They also took other current expenses to charge their pension, but again, these are expenses that they cannot take in the future - they will pay additional tax on future incomes. The net is the same.

Post reply on HN