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

#311

Post by Consultant32452 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #304

Consultant32452 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: ???

Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment.

Since you have no legal or moral claim to FedEx's money, there's no news here. Your favorite political activist/watchdog group is perfect for this kind of stuff. But it's not journalism. That's the part the really confuses me. I'm not suggesting this story isn't interesting, or perhaps even important. I'm just saying it's not straight news journalism. We have different legal bodies (PACs) which are well equipped to highlight information like this and get people riled up to vote certain ways, boycott companies, etc.

Why are you so hung up on this being considered straight news? How do you differentiate between straight news and political propaganda? I've offered my suggestion. Do a basic literary analysis. If it appears the goal of the author was to inspire particular political outcome, that's political propaganda. And I'm not using propaganda negatively here.

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

#312

Post by Consultant32452 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #301

Consultant32452 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not the personal arbiter, I'm describing a reasonably objective measure of the difference between straight news journalism and political activism. This measure is available to anyone who understood basic literary analysis in high school, so it's available to almost everyone.

I welcome you to provide a different measure. In your opinion, where is the line? How could all observers reasonably differentiate between a piece of straight news journalism and political propaganda?

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

#313

Post by mthoms » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 12:21 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #310

mthoms wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money

We have a difference in morals. You claim to have no problem with FedEx lying in order to enrich itself at the expense of hardworking regular people. I do have a problem with it. The New York Times has a problem with it. And judging by this comment section, a lot of hard working Americans have a problem with it.

There's really nothing you can say to morally justify it, which is why you keep deflecting with the "fake news", and "biased reporting" angle. That's all you've brought to the discussion. Yet curiously, you've not been able to cite a single element of the article that is false or misleading.

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

#314

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 12:38 AM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #313

Consultant32452 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money We have a difference in morals. You claim to have no problem with FedEx lying in order to enrich itself at the expense of hardworking regular people. I do have a problem with it. The New York Times has a problem with it. And judging by this comment section, a lot of hard working Americans have a problem with it. There's really nothing you…

You're trying to put me into a box where I don't belong. You are mind reading FedEx and mind reading me. You have no idea if they actually lied or simply changed their mind, or simply believe that what they did really is what leads to the best overall outcome for the public.

I'm not calling this fake news. I'm not suggesting it has any factual inaccuracies. I've offered what I feel is a reasonable delineation between straight news journalism and political propaganda. You just keep asserting you and others want to know this information without actually addressing what I'm saying.

If you disagree with me on where the line is between straight news journalism and political activism, that's fine. Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism?

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

#315

Post by mthoms » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 12:40 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #311

mthoms wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: ???

Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Since you have no legal or moral claim to FedEx's money, there's no news here. Your favorite political activist/watchdog group is perfect for this kind of stuff. But it's not journalism. That's the part the really confuses me. I'm not suggesting this story isn't interesting, or perhaps even important. I'm just saying it's not straight news journalism. We have di…

>Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment.

Why are you using sneaky word tricks? I said nothing about increasing shareholder value. I clearly said "shareholders' bottom line". Or put another way, return on investment.

Please don't do that.

> there's no news here

Hardworking Americans losing billions in tax revenue due to the misleading lobbying efforts of major corporations is news. Period. I can't fathom how it couldn't be news. In any other western-style democracy on the planet it would be news.

Now, you might have an issue with how it's reported. Or believe it was only reported to serve an agenda but you can't dispute the facts of what occurred. Except to say, elsewhere on this page that "it doesn't matter" if they lied.

So, you have no issue with what happened. Others find it morally repugnant and a violation of their trust. Therefore, news.

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

#316

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 12:48 AM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #315

Consultant32452 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Since you have no legal or moral claim to FedEx's money, there's no news here. Your favorite political activist/watchdog group is perfect for this kind of stuff. But it's not journalism. That's the part the really confuses me. I'm not suggesting this story isn't interesting, or perhaps even important. I'm just saying it's not straight news journalism. We have di…

>Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Why are you using sneaky word tricks? I said nothing about increasing shareholder value. I clearly said "shareholders' bottom line" . Or put another way, return on investment . Please don't do that. > there's no news here Hardworking Americans losing billions in tax revenue due to the misleading lobbying efforts of major corporations is news. Period. I can't fa…

You continue to be concerned with whether or not they should pay more taxes, which is completely and totally irrelevant. Whether or not you consider yourself a stakeholder in some hypothetical lie which you've mind-read into this situation is totally irrelevant.

You've dodged my very direct question so I will put it to you again. What is the mechanism by which we, the public, should judge a piece of writing to be able to determine whether it is straight journalism or political activism? Where is the line? That is the only question that matters. This is a question of literary analysis of a piece of writing, not a fact check.

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

#317

Post by mthoms » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 1:00 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #314

mthoms wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money We have a difference in morals. You claim to have no problem with FedEx lying in order to enrich itself at the expense of hardworking regular people. I do have a problem with it. The New York Times has a problem with it. And judging by this comment section, a lot of hard working Americans have a problem with it. There's really nothing you…

You're trying to put me into a box where I don't belong. You are mind reading FedEx and mind reading me. You have no idea if they actually lied or simply changed their mind, or simply believe that what they did really is what leads to the best overall outcome for the public. I'm not calling this fake news. I'm not suggesting it has any factual inaccuracies. I've offered what I feel is a reasonable delineation between…

>I'm not calling this fake news.

Let's go up a few comments where you said:

>I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda."

It's right there.

>Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism

You made a claim that the article is "propaganda", "activism" and "agenda" (your words). So the onus would be on you to prove your claim. Or at least offer a coherent argument why you believe that. As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes this propaganda in your eyes is (a) it's from the NYT and (b) it opposes your worldview somehow.

Anyhow, I'm going to stop here with this particular thread.

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

#318

Post by mthoms » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #316

mthoms wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Why are you using sneaky word tricks? I said nothing about increasing shareholder value. I clearly said "shareholders' bottom line" . Or put another way, return on investment . Please don't do that. > there's no news here Hardworking Americans losing billions in tax revenue due to the misleading lobbying efforts of major corporations is news. Period. I can't fa…

You continue to be concerned with whether or not they should pay more taxes, which is completely and totally irrelevant. Whether or not you consider yourself a stakeholder in some hypothetical lie which you've mind-read into this situation is totally irrelevant. You've dodged my very direct question so I will put it to you again. What is the mechanism by which we, the public, should judge a piece of writing to be abl…

Why is the delivery more important to you than the facts? I find that very, very curious. In all honestly, it reads like you're desperately trying to change the topic.

For more, see my other comment. But I'm respectfully bowing out of this thread now.

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

#319

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #317

Consultant32452 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to put me into a box where I don't belong. You are mind reading FedEx and mind reading me. You have no idea if they actually lied or simply changed their mind, or simply believe that what they did really is what leads to the best overall outcome for the public. I'm not calling this fake news. I'm not suggesting it has any factual inaccuracies. I've offered what I feel is a reasonable delineation between…

>I'm not calling this fake news. Let's go up a few comments where you said: >I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda." It's right there. >Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism You made a claim that the article is "propaganda", "activism" and "agenda" (your words).…

You already revealed yourself when you stated you felt like you had a moral claim to something you have no legal claim to. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. But by doing so, you have admitted that this is a matter of political ideology. You further accused me of merely having an opposing political bias to what is being conveyed in the article, doubling down on your own assertion that it is in fact about political propaganda. If it were just straight facts, then neither of our political biases would matter. Because if it were straight journalism it wouldn't be framed in such a way that your political leanings mattered.

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

#320

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #318

Consultant32452 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You continue to be concerned with whether or not they should pay more taxes, which is completely and totally irrelevant. Whether or not you consider yourself a stakeholder in some hypothetical lie which you've mind-read into this situation is totally irrelevant. You've dodged my very direct question so I will put it to you again. What is the mechanism by which we, the public, should judge a piece of writing to be abl…

Why is the delivery more important to you than the facts ? I find that very, very curious. In all honestly, it reads like you're desperately trying to change the topic. For more, see my other comment. But I'm respectfully bowing out of this thread now.

It doesn't matter which is more important. Two things can be important. The distinction is important precisely for the reason why you think it might not be good for NYT to be legally considered a PAC instead of a newspaper. We have different regulations for different types of organizations. Which one you fall under matters. If it helps, Fox News is in the same boat as NYT here. They are both PACs pretending to be journalism.