3 ms·

> the purpose of the New York Times is to inform readers about the things that matter to them and to the world. Why isn't the purpose of the New York Times to

> the purpose of the New York Times is to inform readers about the things that matter to them and to the world. Why isn't the purpose of the New York Times to mis-inform and trick its readers into blindly accepting horrific policies such as the US Invasion of Iraq in 2003? [1] A corporation's means and purpose are one in the same: profit. I love reading vague, romanticized mischaracterisations of corporations that enables the writer to not need to reconcile their politics with their current living scenarios. But this is a totally inadequate explanation for the existence and purpose of corporations today. Companies exist to derive profit for their investors, primarily by increasing the value of their common stock and by dividends. Whatever other impact is made by a company's operations in the marketplace is an externality. Sometimes an externality is positive, sometimes it is negative. The New York Times exists to derive profit for its investors, and it does this by, yes, making a product that informs its readers. But they also do it by nuzzling up next to evil, moneyed interests - making deals with the devil and serving significant positions in helping to roll out horrible public and international policies. Perhaps journalism is necessary for a healthy society, but could you honestly accuse NYT of being the purveyors of such an ideal? NYT is extraordinarily guilty of nefarious, trixy, and immoral activity compared with its competition, in fact. The goal of pure profit has certainly made the NYT a strong purveyor of tabloid-esque material, clickbaity headlines, and outrageous, unfounded articles. To change this, the American public needs to elevate its own desire for quality journalism to the extent that it becomes more valuable to pursue that goal, than to pursue clicks, outrage, and lowest-common-denominator dreck like the NYT and all other corporate news entities do today. That would be quite a tall order for a society driven to mass mental illness by their weak, thoughtless acceptance of social media into their every waking moment. [1]: http://www.ianwelsh.net/always-remember-the-nytimes-pushed-hard-for-war-in-iraq/ http://www.ianwelsh.net/always-remember-the-nytimes-pushed-h...

wpietri 10y ago
I'm just going to ignore your NYT frothing, for which you are reasonably being downvoted. If you really can't put your personal opinions aside for three entire minutes, there are plenty of other companies that are clearly shaped by a sense of purpose. Toyota, for example, is explicit about it. If you talk with employees at Apple, Intel, or Google, you can easily see that they're not just doing whatever random thing that is profitable; all three companies have a deep sense of purpose. They know their chosen audiences and are dedicated to creating value. > Companies exist to derive profit for their investors, primarily by increasing the value of their common stock and by dividends. There are several ways you could mean this, but I think all of them are wrong. Companies exist societally because we have decided that we want to encourage certain sorts of positive-sum economic activity. If they didn't, we wouldn't allow them. What you write off as an externality is, systemically, the entire point. Individual companies exist because one or more people have lined up around an idea and pursued it with great dedication. I have not met a single entrepreneur whose chosen purpose is "produce a good return for the LPs of some investment fund". Those companies attract employees partly because they can make a living. But also because the company's audience and work are something they can get behind. Nobody lasts long doing a job where they hate the company's mission. From the customer's perspective, the question of purpose is even clearer. It's to give them things they want in exchange for reasonable amounts of money. In theory you might be right about the investor's sense of purpose: maybe they see companies as pure profit-making machines. But even there, the investors I've met don't act that way. They get really excited about who a company's audience is and how they are choosing to serve them. And I'm hardly alone in disagreeing with the "maximize shareholder value" school of thought. If you care to search for "world's dumbest idea" you'll find plenty of discussion slamming it. Including from business luminaries like Jack Welch and Mark Benioff: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/02/05/salesforce-ceo-slams-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-maximizing-shareholder-value/#cf3d5a252558 http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/02/05/salesfor... Entertainingly, even the Whole Foods CEO disagrees with your theory. He wrote: "But we have not achieved our tremendous increase in shareholder value by making shareholder value the primary purpose of our business. [...] the most successful businesses put the customer first, ahead of the investors. In the profit-centered business, customer happiness is merely a means to an end: maximizing profits. In the customer-centered business, customer happiness is an end in itself, and will be pursued with greater interest, passion, and empathy than the profit-centered business is capable of."

wpietri 10y ago

I'm just going to ignore your NYT frothing, for which you are reasonably being downvoted. If you really can't put your personal opinions aside for three entire minutes, there are plenty of other companies that are clearly shaped by a sense of purpose. Toyota, for example, is explicit about it. If you talk with employees at Apple, Intel, or Google, you can easily see that they're not just doing whatever random thing that is profitable; all three companies have a deep sense of purpose. They know their chosen audiences and are dedicated to creating value. > Companies exist to derive profit for their investors, primarily by increasing the value of their common stock and by dividends. There are several ways you could mean this, but I think all of them are wrong. Companies exist societally because we have decided that we want to encourage certain sorts of positive-sum economic activity. If they didn't, we wouldn't allow them. What you write off as an externality is, systemically, the entire point. Individual companies exist because one or more people have lined up around an idea and pursued it with great dedication. I have not met a single entrepreneur whose chosen purpose is "produce a good return for the LPs of some investment fund". Those companies attract employees partly because they can make a living. But also because the company's audience and work are something they can get behind. Nobody lasts long doing a job where they hate the company's mission. From the customer's perspective, the question of purpose is even clearer. It's to give them things they want in exchange for reasonable amounts of money. In theory you might be right about the investor's sense of purpose: maybe they see companies as pure profit-making machines. But even there, the investors I've met don't act that way. They get really excited about who a company's audience is and how they are choosing to serve them. And I'm hardly alone in disagreeing with the "maximize shareholder value" school of thought. If you care to search for "world's dumbest idea" you'll find plenty of discussion slamming it. Including from business luminaries like Jack Welch and Mark Benioff: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/02/05/salesforce-ceo-slams-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-maximizing-shareholder-value/#cf3d5a252558 http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/02/05/salesfor... Entertainingly, even the Whole Foods CEO disagrees with your theory. He wrote: "But we have not achieved our tremendous increase in shareholder value by making shareholder value the primary purpose of our business. [...] the most successful businesses put the customer first, ahead of the investors. In the profit-centered business, customer happiness is merely a means to an end: maximizing profits. In the customer-centered business, customer happiness is an end in itself, and will be pursued with greater interest, passion, and empathy than the profit-centered business is capable of."