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

#191

Post by appleiigs » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #168

appleiigs wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more money could flow to investors Is that a bad thing? I'm thinking it is good. Why do people want higher taxes for? I'm thinking lower taxes reduces the amount of money going to the government is good. The government is horribly inefficient due things such as bureaucracy, corruption, etc. No matter where they operate, it hasn't been good. Whether it's US or China, the gov't is not where I think money should go.

>No matter where they operate, it hasn't been good. That's what the rich hand powerful want you to think. But the facts don't support it. Look at any of the other top western democracies. You know, the ones with longer lifespans, more upward mobility, happier populations, better infrastructure, better education, and so on. I'm not suggesting that those countries are perfect or that there aren't gross inefficiencies,…

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.

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

#192

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #181

akhosravian wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some specific examples of things in the NYT piece that are misleading?

The portrayal of capital investment being essentially zero is claimed to be misleading in the linked article.

That is not a claim that was made. From the NYT 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. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017.

edit: Note: the parent commenter ninja-edited in the word "essentially" after I made this comment.

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

#193

Post by Consultant32452 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #90

Consultant32452 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.

The thrust of the NY Times piece was made clear in the first paragraph: FedEx isn't just following tax law, it's influencing it with a great deal of lobbying cash. It isn't a neutral player, but trying to rewrite the rules in its favor.

Okay. FedEx is subject to a law. They also have an opinion and try to influence the law they are subject to. Is there a significant percentage of the population that would assume otherwise? I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda."

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

#194

Post by weberc2 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

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…

Moreover, the folks who cry "all news has bias!" to justify explicit propaganda miss the obvious point that bias isn't a binary proposition. A little bit of accidental bias is not the same as deliberately driving an agenda. Real journalism aspires to minimize bias.

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

#195

Post by Sebguer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

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.

You can also cancel via live chat - or at least you could the last time I tried.

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

#196

Post by Consultant32452 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #106

Consultant32452 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.

I dunno. A person like me might think it since we live in a society, we should share the burden of keeping it going. So 'following tax law' effectively designed to be abused with built-in exemptions is news. It may not be criminal, but I can't say it is right. edit to clarify: and if it is not right then it is of general interest to society and thus it is news

I took advantage of the homestead exemption the last time I filed income tax. Is that news?

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

#197

Post by fortran77 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

I certainly would have liked to the facts rebutted point by point.

But I don't think their response was completely void of substance.

It is worth noting the NY Times also uses the tax laws to pay little or no taxes.

And reinvesting money to shore up pensions -- so many of which are inadequately funded -- seems like a valid point to make when justifying how they used tax laws to their advantage. It's not like all the money used to defer tax payments went to pay executive bonuses, as the NY Times would have readers believe.

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

#198

Post by philwelch » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:01 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.

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

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

#199

Post by drak0n1c » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #192

drak0n1c wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The portrayal of capital investment being essentially zero is claimed to be misleading in the linked article.

That is not a claim that was made. From the NYT 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. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more…

That framing is incredibly negative and obviously communicates it as "near zero" to the passing reader. Vague terminology of "less than projected" is the way they choose to frame it in the first sentence, and "spent even less in the next year" is the next sentence. NYT then chooses to completely omit the actual numerical figures of FedEx's investments, and instead highlights figures in the unrelated category of dividend payments (which were actually smaller than recent capital expenditures).

I'd say that paragraph you quoted showcases the misleading writing very nicely.

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

#200

Post by lovehashbrowns » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

lstroud wrote: post #81

gregwtmtno wrote: post #21

So this response says the story is factually incorrect, but doesn't dispute a single fact. If the story is inaccurate, FedEx should describe what was wrong, in detail, and ask for a correction. That they didn't do that makes me wonder.

Corrections don’t sell papers...err get clicks. They also don’t evolve the narrative. Fedex isn’t just challenging the facts. They are challenging the underlying premise that corporations are a net negative on society. I think it would be fascinating to see an actual debate by folks that aren’t politicians, but are willing to put their public reputation on the line.

NYT makes corrections. Your statement should actually read "people don't pay attention to corrections." It doesn't matter how many times a publication issues a correction because people will continue to spread the inaccurate information anyway.

For example, the Wakefield study that led to an entire anti-vaccination movement.