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

231–240 of 321 posts

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

#231

Post by munk-a »

zepto wrote: post #161
networkimprov wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

How is incorrect that the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit?

I think it's intensely incorrect and that journalism is an asset to society that definitely is deserving of public subsidies - but given the environment NYT is operating in they're either going to need to seek a profit or a patron. I think it's pretty obvious the sort of PR fallout the Washington Post has (somewhat deservedly) gotten after being taken over by Bezos.

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

#232

Post by munk-a »

larnmar wrote: post #82
whakim wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) They aren't disputing the "$0 paid in taxes in 2018," which is the main point of the NYTimes article (an article about how companies were responding to the Tax Cuts/Jobs Act). "Billions of dollars in tax payments" is factually correct, but doesn't address the core allegation. 2) $6 billion compared to what (prior to previous years)? No point of reference here. The response is great theater, but it is carefully wor…

On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.

I think it's unproductive to try and read all news in bad faith, there are very few things that anyone can truly 100% comprehend and in a democracy we need everyone to be at least somewhat aware of things happening in society.

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

#233

Post by stock_toaster »

pcroh wrote: post #147
crazygringo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's _actually_ false, they can be sued for libel.

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

#234

Post by drak0n1c »

ceejayoz wrote: post #220
cascom wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FedEx CapEx in $B '09-'18 $2.6,$3.4,$3.6,$3.6,$3.3,$3.8,$5.0,$5.0,$5.1,$5.6 Do you think the article fairly reflects the trends in the company's capital expenditures?

Yes, I think it does. FedEx's lobbying efforts argued reduced taxes would allow them to increase capital spending more than they would have otherwise. Instead, they look to have stuck to their trendline - and 2019's estimated is flat. Draw those numbers on a chart and it doesn't look like the tax cut generated much of a boost: https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?... Article from which the char…

The NYT in the paragraph you quoted vaguely paints the picture that investment is being cut significantly in favor of massive dividend payments. However, if the reality is that it is merely plateauing as you and the parent comment show, then doesn't that show their wording was misleading?

Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). However, the NYT should have included figures and stated it how you are in your comment - that growth factor is what has gone down, not the actual level of investment.

I am not disputing what you say about FedEx, I just want NYT to be more careful and precise in its reporting.

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

#235

Post by crazygringo »

bazooka_penguin wrote: post #225
crazygringo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 destroyin…

Then FedEx has their PR team work with journalists at other major news sources to get their side out, which the journalists will be happy to do since it's genuinely newsworthy. (Which companies do every day, it's what PR teams are for.) Same thing in the end.

I will say it one more time: the idea that FedEx, a $40B company, is somehow, in any way, disadvantaged in being able to respond, simply defies credulity.

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

#236

Post by ceejayoz »

drak0n1c wrote: post #234
ceejayoz wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think it does. FedEx's lobbying efforts argued reduced taxes would allow them to increase capital spending more than they would have otherwise. Instead, they look to have stuck to their trendline - and 2019's estimated is flat. Draw those numbers on a chart and it doesn't look like the tax cut generated much of a boost: https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?... Article from which the char…

The NYT in the paragraph you quoted vaguely paints the picture that investment is being cut significantly in favor of massive dividend payments. However, if the reality is that it is merely plateauing as you and the parent comment show, then doesn't that show their wording was misleading? Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). However, the NYT should have inc…

It makes the point that they didn't even spend what they'd initially projected, let alone increase it like they said they would. They did not follow through with their lobbying promises.

The fact that they instead increased stock buybacks etc. demonstrates a point of detractors of the tax law - that it's proceeds would most likely go back into already-wealthy pockets, not capital investment. It's not unreasonable to point it out here.

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

#238

Post by jmull »

ryanmercer wrote: post #126
jmull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, I don't see any substance in the pushback. Is there any? E.g., how does the fact that the NYTimes paid no federal income tax in 2017 address or refute anything in the article? Likewise the other financial facts about the NYTimes doesn't seem related. The times article is about how the tax cuts did not result in the capital investments promised, by FexEx and others. Now, if the times had lobbied for the tax cut an…

>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…

You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though. They didn't say FedEx had zero capital investment. They said there wasn't the promised increase.

From the article:

> ...As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019.

So maybe you can argue that the times numbers are bad with some numbers of your own? Maybe you can argue with some numbers that this hub expansion is just getting started and over the next few years will represent a nice increase in capital spending? As it is, you aren't really arguing anything.

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

#239

Post by malvosenior »

mmazing wrote: post #186
frockington1 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A step in the right direction. The lower the better in my opinion, the federal government is long past its prime

Is that because you think that the federal government doesn't properly utilize the tax dollars that it receives? If the federal government is past its prime, what do you think that the future of the United States should look like?

> Is that because you think that the federal government doesn't properly utilize the tax dollars that it receives?

Not the OP but this is absolutely how I feel. I think I would only be happy to pay taxes if every single dollar I spent was accounted for with a way to track progress on what is being funded. Missing milestones or goals would result in me paying no more taxes on that project until whatever management in place was restructured.

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

#240

Post by dwild »

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…

NYT is spending money to publish this article... that would explains why they are all going to bankrupt /s

NYT sure is spending money, but it is ultimately making money by publishing this article, or else they woudldn't do it. They are making more money by making it more sensational.

FedEx would spends money to responds, ironically, they would have to spends it most probably to NYT. NYT will again spends money to publish that full page ads, sure, but they are making money by publishing it, or else they wouldn't do it either.

They aren't on equal footing. NYT makes money with that article.

Post reply on HN