4 ms·

Whataboutism is justifying one party's actions by pointing at another party and saying "they do it too." This isn't that. Fedex is saying that they do a lot mo

Whataboutism is justifying one party's actions by pointing at another party and saying "they do it too." This isn't that. Fedex is saying that they do a lot more for the national economy that the NYT. They pay more in taxes, they invest more in assets, etc.

adamrezich 7y ago
Why is this even up for debate? Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Why do people continue to put ""journalism"" on such a high pedestal? Like, what actual value did the NYT article produce? At worst it could have potentially negatively affected the FedEx stock price and overall popular perception, for no good reason other than to generate clicks/ad views.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  If you look through the comments, it's because some people would like to transfer wealth from the top 10% of earners to the bottom 90%, or maybe even the top 50% to the bottom 50%, and the NYT is a useful tool in educating people about why that is a moral act, e.g. FedEx is bad and didn't pay their fair share, and also some people earn more than others, therefore... Proof: your downvotes.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  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 paying zero tax. [1]: http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers-the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.html http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers...
  - adamrezich 7y ago
    I'd be fine with that as long as we get to start referring to "journalists" as priests or clergymen or whatever, at least then things would be a bit more honest.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Acknowledging that newspapers are just as biased as religious texts would be fine.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    > 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 newspaper didn't want to pay taxes they can form themselves as a non profit as churches largely do. It's been done before, e.g. ProPublica, Institute for Non-profit News, Crosscut, The Texas Tribune, and many more.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      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.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  That's a rather bleak, mechanistic view of society. Journalism provides information, without which voters are unable to make decisions any better than random chance. Democracy cannot function in the absence of information. Here, specifically, the NYT is contributing to the public's knowledge of the effects of the tax cut: people were promised expanding businesses investments as an outcome of letting them keep all those billions. This not happening should inform peoples' willingness to try that strategy again.
  - adamrezich 7y ago
    30 years ago this article would have never been published in the paper, or it would be a tiny article tucked deep in the financial section or whatever. But nowadays they have to do anything to get clicks/ad views/subscriptions/attention, because that's the game now. They'll write a headline like the FedEx one because they naively think they can do so without repercussion because they're stuck in the old mindset of being the unassailable trusted authoritative arbiters of truth. No, as it turns out, when a company does a thing that can potentially harm another company financially, the other company can now publicly fight back for all to see online. "Journalists," as well as many in this thread, still struggle to acclimate to the reality of this relatively newly leveled playing field. You can't just publish whatever anymore from an ivory tower of "journalism" and expect someone, individual or corporation, to not fight back online.
- datavirtue 7y ago
  We are talking about it now. That's what NYT did.

adamrezich 7y ago

Why is this even up for debate? Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Why do people continue to put ""journalism"" on such a high pedestal? Like, what actual value did the NYT article produce? At worst it could have potentially negatively affected the FedEx stock price and overall popular perception, for no good reason other than to generate clicks/ad views.

isoskeles 7y ago
If you look through the comments, it's because some people would like to transfer wealth from the top 10% of earners to the bottom 90%, or maybe even the top 50% to the bottom 50%, and the NYT is a useful tool in educating people about why that is a moral act, e.g. FedEx is bad and didn't pay their fair share, and also some people earn more than others, therefore... Proof: your downvotes.
CamperBob2 7y ago
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 paying zero tax. [1]: http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers-the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.html http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers...
- adamrezich 7y ago
  I'd be fine with that as long as we get to start referring to "journalists" as priests or clergymen or whatever, at least then things would be a bit more honest.
- zepto 7y ago
  Acknowledging that newspapers are just as biased as religious texts would be fine.
- wang_li 7y ago
  > 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 newspaper didn't want to pay taxes they can form themselves as a non profit as churches largely do. It's been done before, e.g. ProPublica, Institute for Non-profit News, Crosscut, The Texas Tribune, and many more.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    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.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
That's a rather bleak, mechanistic view of society. Journalism provides information, without which voters are unable to make decisions any better than random chance. Democracy cannot function in the absence of information. Here, specifically, the NYT is contributing to the public's knowledge of the effects of the tax cut: people were promised expanding businesses investments as an outcome of letting them keep all those billions. This not happening should inform peoples' willingness to try that strategy again.
- adamrezich 7y ago
  30 years ago this article would have never been published in the paper, or it would be a tiny article tucked deep in the financial section or whatever. But nowadays they have to do anything to get clicks/ad views/subscriptions/attention, because that's the game now. They'll write a headline like the FedEx one because they naively think they can do so without repercussion because they're stuck in the old mindset of being the unassailable trusted authoritative arbiters of truth. No, as it turns out, when a company does a thing that can potentially harm another company financially, the other company can now publicly fight back for all to see online. "Journalists," as well as many in this thread, still struggle to acclimate to the reality of this relatively newly leveled playing field. You can't just publish whatever anymore from an ivory tower of "journalism" and expect someone, individual or corporation, to not fight back online.
datavirtue 7y ago
We are talking about it now. That's what NYT did.