4 ms·

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 ca

by 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.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        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.
        mthoms 7y ago
        >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.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        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?
        mthoms 7y ago
        >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.
- kirsebaer 7y ago
  It is important that people are informed about major US corporations.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    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 promote a particular political agenda, that's wonderful. They should register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and push for that agenda. I think they have a lot to offer us in that arena.
    - mthoms 7y ago
      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: ???
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        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.

by Frondo 7y ago

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.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      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.
      - mthoms 7y ago
        >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.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        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?
        mthoms 7y ago
        >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.
kirsebaer 7y ago
It is important that people are informed about major US corporations.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  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 promote a particular political agenda, that's wonderful. They should register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and push for that agenda. I think they have a lot to offer us in that arena.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    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: ???
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      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.