5 ms·

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 agend

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.

Someone1234 7y ago
> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to be honest, but outside of that there's nothing to say that a journalist cannot have a set of beliefs that shape their worldview. In this case you aren't really accusing the NYT of being dishonest, you're saying that their honest opinion isn't ok because you have a different opinion (or that a journalist has to be void of any opinions at all). I'd just suggest you skip either that author's work or the NYT in general then, and find something more aligned to your own worldview. As to the accusation it is "activism?" I mean, yeah, I guess. Arguing that something, anything, is wrong is activism depending on your definitions but since we haven't established that activism is a bad thing or wrong, that's not really problematic in and of itself.
- zaroth 7y ago
  The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure. IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.
  - matt4077 7y ago
    The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.
    - wostusername 7y ago
      I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure? IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Of course activism isn't bad. I'm even sympathetic to the particular flavor of activism in this article. I welcome the NYT to publicly reclassify itself as an activist organization, instead of marketing itself as news, the paper of record even.
- weberc2 7y ago
  Journalism aspires to minimize bias, and that's why people trust journalism as an institution (and why, lately, that trust is rapidly eroding). Using "journalism" to give your biases/agenda the air of objectivity is misleading, immoral, and unethical. If a journalist or editor wants to push their personal agenda, they can use the opinion section like everyone else. That's why it exists.
Frondo 7y ago
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.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  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."
  - mthoms 7y ago
    >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?
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      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.
      - mthoms 7y ago
        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.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
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
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I took advantage of the homestead exemption the last time I filed income tax. Is that news?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    Did you spend time brib..lobbying local councilmen to give you that exemption? Edit: more to the point, what makes you identify as Fedex?
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      I don't identify as FedEx. I identify as a taxpayer who follows the law. You already admitted the law is intentionally written this way, so that they can pay less taxes. This isn't different from how the law was intentionally written so I can pay less taxes via the homestead exemption. There's no scandal here. If NYT wants a law changed, they should acknowledge they are a tax advocacy group and not a news organization, and put forth arguments for changing the law. But what they're doing here is pushing a particular agenda under the guise of journalism. Real journalism doesn't have an agenda. Good journalism aims to minimize bias.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I may be reading it wrong, but you seem to misrepresent my argument. Here is what I am saying. You are not Fedex. You are not even in the same category. It is not apples and oranges. It is apples and dwarf planets. Ergo, any attempt to compare your treatment is.. just not comparable. They are literally big enough to write laws that benefit them. That is news. Here is what you appear to be saying. We are both tax payers so it is apples and apples comparison. I mean, I use my standard deduction and NYT does not write about me... Please tell me if I read it wrong. edit. spelling correction
bb88 7y ago
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 you agree with) 4. Investigating all the facts to settle publicly made allegations by politicians or political figures. So while 1/2/3 might be seen as activism -- #4 is not. If people make the claim that the IRS is toothless when it comes to enforcement of tax collections on large corporations -- finding out the facts is a good way to help settle public debate.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  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 the public apology the NYT published after the 2016 election. Maybe with honesty, or without fear or favor means something different to you than it means to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade... >As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    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.

Someone1234 7y ago

> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to be honest, but outside of that there's nothing to say that a journalist cannot have a set of beliefs that shape their worldview. In this case you aren't really accusing the NYT of being dishonest, you're saying that their honest opinion isn't ok because you have a different opinion (or that a journalist has to be void of any opinions at all). I'd just suggest you skip either that author's work or the NYT in general then, and find something more aligned to your own worldview. As to the accusation it is "activism?" I mean, yeah, I guess. Arguing that something, anything, is wrong is activism depending on your definitions but since we haven't established that activism is a bad thing or wrong, that's not really problematic in and of itself.

zaroth 7y ago
The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure. IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.
- matt4077 7y ago
  The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.
  - wostusername 7y ago
    I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure? IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).
Consultant32452 7y ago
Of course activism isn't bad. I'm even sympathetic to the particular flavor of activism in this article. I welcome the NYT to publicly reclassify itself as an activist organization, instead of marketing itself as news, the paper of record even.
weberc2 7y ago
Journalism aspires to minimize bias, and that's why people trust journalism as an institution (and why, lately, that trust is rapidly eroding). Using "journalism" to give your biases/agenda the air of objectivity is misleading, immoral, and unethical. If a journalist or editor wants to push their personal agenda, they can use the opinion section like everyone else. That's why it exists.

Frondo 7y ago

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.

Consultant32452 7y ago
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."
- mthoms 7y ago
  >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?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    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.
    - mthoms 7y ago
      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.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

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

Consultant32452 7y ago
I took advantage of the homestead exemption the last time I filed income tax. Is that news?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Did you spend time brib..lobbying local councilmen to give you that exemption? Edit: more to the point, what makes you identify as Fedex?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I don't identify as FedEx. I identify as a taxpayer who follows the law. You already admitted the law is intentionally written this way, so that they can pay less taxes. This isn't different from how the law was intentionally written so I can pay less taxes via the homestead exemption. There's no scandal here. If NYT wants a law changed, they should acknowledge they are a tax advocacy group and not a news organization, and put forth arguments for changing the law. But what they're doing here is pushing a particular agenda under the guise of journalism. Real journalism doesn't have an agenda. Good journalism aims to minimize bias.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      I may be reading it wrong, but you seem to misrepresent my argument. Here is what I am saying. You are not Fedex. You are not even in the same category. It is not apples and oranges. It is apples and dwarf planets. Ergo, any attempt to compare your treatment is.. just not comparable. They are literally big enough to write laws that benefit them. That is news. Here is what you appear to be saying. We are both tax payers so it is apples and apples comparison. I mean, I use my standard deduction and NYT does not write about me... Please tell me if I read it wrong. edit. spelling correction

bb88 7y ago

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 you agree with) 4. Investigating all the facts to settle publicly made allegations by politicians or political figures. So while 1/2/3 might be seen as activism -- #4 is not. If people make the claim that the IRS is toothless when it comes to enforcement of tax collections on large corporations -- finding out the facts is a good way to help settle public debate.

Consultant32452 7y ago
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 the public apology the NYT published after the 2016 election. Maybe with honesty, or without fear or favor means something different to you than it means to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade... >As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
- weberc2 7y ago
  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.