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

#281

Post by philwelch » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #231

zepto wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s no silver bullet in any of this. If the government subsidies journalism the government can control journalism. At least with corporate control you can have competing corporations telling alternate sides of the story. But ultimately it’s on the public to be skeptical and critical consumers of media.

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

#282

Post by hef19898 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #274

hef19898 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market value of public companies is not determined by the balance sheet but by the stock price multiplied by the number of share. Buybacks reduce the number of shares and by increasing demand increase the price per share. In the first step, the market value is a constant, taking out the number of shares thus increases directly the share price. Which are than further increased by increased demand and increasing the ma…

Demand for stock is not determined by the number of outstanding shares.

Nope. But buying back large amount of shares is driving prices by reducing the number of shares and increasing demand.

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

#283

Post by appleiigs » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #215

appleiigs wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western societies have been more democratic... and more capitalist. If you take high taxes to the extreme (eg. eliminate all billionaires like Bernie Sanders recommends), you get closer to communism which hasn't done as well.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Communism is bad? I agree. It does nothing to support your assertion that any and all governments are inherently bad.

We were having a tax discussion. We both agree that gov't has gross inefficiencies, so I'm suggesting funding the inefficient organization less. When I said "it hasn't been good" I was talking in the context about efficiency.

In my next comment, I again was talking about taxes. I used communism as an example of a high tax system. I also wanted to point out that western style democracies which you call good, lean toward capitalism, where gov't have a smaller role in society - which I am using to support my lower tax argument.

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

#284

Post by justin66 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #276

justin66 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires That's something that has literally never been the case. Skepticism exists on a sliding scale, and children are taught in high school how to spot a biased headline, a poor use of a statistic, and so on. When it comes to the public's attitude toward the press, it's not credulousness versus skepticism that exis…

There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them. The mainstream media is terrified by the gradual erosion of this power and is desperately trying to convince everyone that it’s better for society at large for them to hold that level of implicit public trust. This is even more true for newspapers, which have always considered t…

> There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them.

You know, it's before my time, but when Cronkite suggested in 1968 that the United States withdraw from Vietnam, I believe what he said was taken seriously. I do not believe it resulted in the country unifying behind the peace movement and immediately withdrawing from Vietnam, which is the sort thing that would happen if "most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them."

> The mainstream media is terrified by the gradual erosion of this power and is desperately trying to convince everyone that it’s better for society at large for them to hold that level of implicit public trust. This is even more true for newspapers, which have always considered themselves of higher status than television anyway.

The less hyperbolic and more accurate way to state all this is, they believe their work is important and something the public should take seriously. Those monsters.

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

#285

Post by scott_s » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

larnmar wrote: post #245

munk-a wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not necessarily assuming bad faith to realise the existence of the context which leads to the selection and writing of the articles at the New York Times, or Fox News, or Buzzfeed, or Xinhua, or any other outlet.

I agree that all news outlets represent the world view of their reporting and editorial staff. I disagree that it is always accurate to call this a "false narrative."

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

#286

Post by bryan_w » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #124

remarkEon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "whataboutism" is the crux of the issue though. Everyone does their best to minimize their tax burden every year - this is completely rational behavior. I don't know what point the NYT was trying to make, other than maybe showing that FedEx has some good accountants. The debate that we should be having, and the one that FedEx is perhaps crudely trying to edge us toward, is whether these tax policies actually "hel…

Did you read the NYTimes article? The article is more about how FedEx didn't re-invest the money saved on taxes like they claimed they would. Instead they put used it for stock buybacks and dividends. The NYTimes article was about the very thing you said it should be about.

I mean... they did literally reinvest it in themselves by doing stock buybacks. If that is a good thing is up for debate.

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

#287

Post by Consultant32452 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #260

Consultant32452 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't identify as FedEx. I identify as a taxpayer who follows the law. You already admitted the law is intentionally written this way, so that they can pay less taxes. This isn't different from how the law was intentionally written so I can pay less taxes via the homestead exemption. There's no scandal here. If NYT wants a law changed, they should acknowledge they are a tax advocacy group and not a news organizatio…

I may be reading it wrong, but you seem to misrepresent my argument. Here is what I am saying. You are not Fedex. You are not even in the same category. It is not apples and oranges. It is apples and dwarf planets. Ergo, any attempt to compare your treatment is.. just not comparable. They are literally big enough to write laws that benefit them. That is news. Here is what you appear to be saying. We are both tax paye…

What is the same between FedEx and me is the lack of scandal. There is no scandal/news in a corporation following the tax law, just as there is no scandal/news in me following the tax law.

I want to be clear that my intention is not to debate tax law. I think that's irrelevant.

If the NYT wants the law to change in some way, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and fight for changes to the law. I think they'd be great at it, and I think they have a lot to offer the world in that arena.

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

#288

Post by zepto » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #190

zepto wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Who is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to publish stories?

That is the straw man.

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

#289

Post by philwelch » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #284

philwelch wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them. The mainstream media is terrified by the gradual erosion of this power and is desperately trying to convince everyone that it’s better for society at large for them to hold that level of implicit public trust. This is even more true for newspapers, which have always considered t…

> There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them. You know, it's before my time, but when Cronkite suggested in 1968 that the United States withdraw from Vietnam, I believe what he said was taken seriously. I do not believe it resulted in the country unifying behind the peace movement and immediately withdrawing from Vietnam,…

> You know, it's before my time, but when Cronkite suggested in 1968 that the United States withdraw from Vietnam, I believe what he said was taken seriously. I do not believe it resulted in the country unifying behind the peace movement and immediately withdrawing from Vietnam, which is the sort thing that would happen if "most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them."

It took a few years, but the ultimate outcome of the Vietnam War was probably sealed at that moment, and everybody including President Johnson and Walter Cronkite himself knew it.

More essential though was the unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream media's power to selectively report the facts they considered most pertinent, to decide the issues of the day by choosing what to report and what not to report, and to establish governing narratives around their coverage. There is an enormous degree of power that the media can and does exercise in this fashion. Today that power is much less centralized than it once was. I consider this a net good, and am suspicious of any nostalgia for the days of greater centralization.

> The less hyperbolic and more accurate way to state all this is, they believe their work is important and something the public should take seriously.

I take the work of the media seriously enough to be critical towards it rather than abiding by lies about how media corporations aren't actually corporations.

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

#290

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #287

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be reading it wrong, but you seem to misrepresent my argument. Here is what I am saying. You are not Fedex. You are not even in the same category. It is not apples and oranges. It is apples and dwarf planets. Ergo, any attempt to compare your treatment is.. just not comparable. They are literally big enough to write laws that benefit them. That is news. Here is what you appear to be saying. We are both tax paye…

What is the same between FedEx and me is the lack of scandal. There is no scandal/news in a corporation following the tax law, just as there is no scandal/news in me following the tax law. I want to be clear that my intention is not to debate tax law. I think that's irrelevant. If the NYT wants the law to change in some way, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the rele…

Yes? But I did not classify it as scandal, but as news, or as as something of interest to the general populace. In the same vein, I did not discuss journalism as a whole.

I only said that it is news.

You seem to want to move discussion in a completely different direction.