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

301–310 of 321 posts

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

#301

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #297
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an odd argument to make. By your definition, news is not news unless it is not of interest to me?

News is not news if its purpose is a specific political outcome. The FedEx stock report, which also includes its tax bill, is news. I hope you can see the difference in purpose between the stock report and the article you just saw.

I see now. You alone are the arbiter what constitutes true news. Everything else propaganda aimed at specific outcome.

It may come as a surprise to you, but even your cherished Fedex stock report is a piece of propaganda aimed at specic audience ( investors ). It even has a singular political aim in mind.

Can you guess what it is?

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

#302

Post by CamperBob2 »

wang_li wrote: post #269
CamperBob2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Here's one point of view that doesn't come up as often as it should: the First Amendment doesn't say anything about churches that it doesn't also say about the press. Yet we don't tax churches on the grounds that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." [1] If it weren't for this double standard, the Times would indeed be justified in pa…

> the First Amendment doesn't say anything about churches that it doesn't also say about the press. It assuredly does say different things: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If a n…

Either taxes "abridge freedom" or they don't. Which is it?

In reality, the language in the First Amendment is nowhere near sufficient to justify granting tax exemptions to an entire industry, be it religious or secular.

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

#303

Post by mthoms »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #280
mthoms wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm still failing to see where this is "news" FedEx made specific arguments in favor of the cut to shore up support. Those talking points turned out (surprise!) to be untrue. Taxpayers of the United States have subsequently lost out to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars. What part of that is not news-worthy?

I feel you're too caught up in whether or not you personally feel FedEx should pay more in taxes. That's not what is at issue here. If NYT believes FedEx should pay more in taxes, if the NYT wants the law changed for any reason, 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 better tax law.

We disagree with whats at issue.

To me (and the NYT) it's not okay for CEOs to lie and deceive in order to get legislation passed. Especially legislation that enriches their shareholders while hurting the average American taxpayer.

The exact amount they pay is not the issue, and we're in agreement that no laws were broken.

The issue is one of morality not legality. They deserve to be called on their BS and they were.

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

#304

Post by mthoms »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #294
kirsebaer wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important that people are informed about major US corporations.

Right, and you can find out what FedEx pays in taxes in their stock report. The difference between the stock report and what NYT is doing here is framing with a particular end goal in mind. They want to not just induce a reaction from the reader, but action towards a particular political end goal. There's nothing wrong with someone writing in that style, we just don't call it journalism. If the NYT wants to actively…

FedEX's claim: "Lower taxes will increase our level of investment"

The reality: Lower taxes increased shareholders' bottom line.

The NYT: "Hey FedEX, you lied to the American public. Now they're on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars."

Consultant32452: "The NYT is politically biased for pointing this all out. Fake news!"

Everyone else: ???

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

#305

Post by jrockway »

ryanmercer wrote: post #271
jrockway wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What does 2007 have to do with this article or subject?

You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse, and then a comment replied to you saying "that's a much larger investment than the NYT has ever made" and then I cited a large investment that the NYT has made. The time range was expanded to "ever" with that comment.

The New York Times building has twice as much square footage than the claimed 800,000 square feet that FedEx added.

So you can kind of see where I'm going. Although it's stupid to argue that a newspaper can't write an article about something if they haven't invested as much money in real estate as the subject of their article... it appears that they have, so as dumb as that argument is, it's not even correct.

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

#306

Post by crispyambulance »

bazooka_penguin wrote: post #221
crispyambulance wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, it's a dark user pattern, but there's a long way to go for them to match the tactics of Comcast or Verizon. I would call it unfair to characterize NYT subscriptions with Cable-TV-like tactics.

Do they offer intractably complex subscriptions meant to deceive you into buy more than what you need ? No.

Do they prey on old people and talk them into services they neither use nor understand? No.

Do they call you on a regular basis to nag you about an upgrade to your subscription? No.

Do they send you mail 1-2 times a month with one of those stupid credit-card-sized cardboard ads with a deal on them? No.

Do they automatically jack-up your bill as soon as intro is over? Yes. That's about as close as they get to cable TV. It's not good, but it's not evil either. You can, AFAIK, extend a discount indefinitely by calling them up and asking for it.

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

#307

Post by ryanmercer »

jrockway wrote: post #305
ryanmercer wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does 2007 have to do with this article or subject?

You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse, and then a comment replied to you saying "that's a much larger investment than the NYT has ever made" and then I cited a large investment that the NYT has made. The time range was expanded to "ever" with that comment. The New York Times building has twice as much square footage than the claimed 800,000 square feet that FedEx added. So you can kind of see…

>You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse,

They didn't 'add some square footage to a warehouse" they are building multiple brand new buildings, with brand new equipment, drastically increasing their sort operation at IND by 800,000 square feet and are also expanding at MEM as well as building a brand new facility just south of Indianapolis.

Buying a building /= building a new state of the art sort facility full of conveyors, scanners, etc.

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

#308

Post by bb88 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #177
bb88 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bias is largely unintentional. Your world view impacts how you interpret things and therefore which stories you find interesting or worth discussing. An agenda is different. An agenda is a conscious attempt to lead others to a particular end goal of your choosing. Perhaps you don't think that distinction is important, but I do. News will always be biased, but quality news does not have an agenda. Here's a snippet of…

This is the way these arguments usually go:

1. Reporters and editors cannot possibly be aware of their own bias because they have their own world view, through which they perceive their own reality.

2. Because reporters and their editors cannot be aware of their own biases, fundamentally all news is biased, intentionally or unintentionally.

Your argument depends upon #1 to be True. However, people can know their biases and adjust for it. But at the NYT, editors and reporters are aware of their internal biases, so #1 is actually False.

So then #2 leads to something like #3:

3. Fox News, while intentionally biased, provides balance to the obvious left leaning bias of the NYT because of #1 and #2 -- even if they don't fully vet their stories [1].

So personally I would prefer to get my news from people that research and report facts. Facts, in and of themselves, are unbiased.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Fox_News_r...

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

#309

Post by zepto »

hef19898 wrote: post #211
philwelch wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can publish whatever they want. It’s a free country. And I’m free to disbelieve them or distrust their motivations.

Not arguing with that. The thing with free speech so is to be aware of the consequences for society if the public discurs becomes based on opinions, distrust and partisanship instead of civility and facts.

Seems like the onus is on the NYT to be more scrupulous in establishing that.

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

#310

Post by Consultant32452 »

mthoms wrote: post #303
Consultant32452 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel you're too caught up in whether or not you personally feel FedEx should pay more in taxes. That's not what is at issue here. If NYT believes FedEx should pay more in taxes, if the NYT wants the law changed for any reason, 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 better tax law.

We disagree with whats at issue. To me (and the NYT) it's not okay for CEOs to lie and deceive in order to get legislation passed. Especially legislation that enriches their shareholders while hurting the average American taxpayer. The exact amount they pay is not the issue, and we're in agreement that no laws were broken. The issue is one of morality not legality . They deserve to be called on their BS and they were…

Your favorite political activist/watchdog group is perfectly suited for that. But since you have no moral claim to FedEx's money, there's no news here. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money.
Post reply on HN