4 ms·

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.
    - mthoms 7y ago
      >Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Why are you using sneaky word tricks? I said nothing about increasing shareholder value. I clearly said "shareholders' bottom line". Or put another way, return on investment. Please don't do that. > there's no news here Hardworking Americans losing billions in tax revenue due to the misleading lobbying efforts of major corporations is news. Period. I can't fathom how it couldn't be news. In any other western-style democracy on the planet it would be news. Now, you might have an issue with how it's reported. Or believe it was only reported to serve an agenda but you can't dispute the facts of what occurred. Except to say, elsewhere on this page that "it doesn't matter" if they lied. So, you have no issue with what happened. Others find it morally repugnant and a violation of their trust. Therefore, news.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        You continue to be concerned with whether or not they should pay more taxes, which is completely and totally irrelevant. Whether or not you consider yourself a stakeholder in some hypothetical lie which you've mind-read into this situation is totally irrelevant. You've dodged my very direct question so I will put it to you again. What is the mechanism by which we, the public, should judge a piece of writing to be able to determine whether it is straight journalism or political activism? Where is the line? That is the only question that matters. This is a question of literary analysis of a piece of writing, not a fact check.
        mthoms 7y ago
        Why is the delivery more important to you than the facts? I find that very, very curious. In all honestly, it reads like you're desperately trying to change the topic. For more, see my other comment. But I'm respectfully bowing out of this thread now.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        It doesn't matter which is more important. Two things can be important. The distinction is important precisely for the reason why you think it might not be good for NYT to be legally considered a PAC instead of a newspaper. We have different regulations for different types of organizations. Which one you fall under matters. If it helps, Fox News is in the same boat as NYT here. They are both PACs pretending to be journalism.

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.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    >Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Why are you using sneaky word tricks? I said nothing about increasing shareholder value. I clearly said "shareholders' bottom line". Or put another way, return on investment. Please don't do that. > there's no news here Hardworking Americans losing billions in tax revenue due to the misleading lobbying efforts of major corporations is news. Period. I can't fathom how it couldn't be news. In any other western-style democracy on the planet it would be news. Now, you might have an issue with how it's reported. Or believe it was only reported to serve an agenda but you can't dispute the facts of what occurred. Except to say, elsewhere on this page that "it doesn't matter" if they lied. So, you have no issue with what happened. Others find it morally repugnant and a violation of their trust. Therefore, news.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      You continue to be concerned with whether or not they should pay more taxes, which is completely and totally irrelevant. Whether or not you consider yourself a stakeholder in some hypothetical lie which you've mind-read into this situation is totally irrelevant. You've dodged my very direct question so I will put it to you again. What is the mechanism by which we, the public, should judge a piece of writing to be able to determine whether it is straight journalism or political activism? Where is the line? That is the only question that matters. This is a question of literary analysis of a piece of writing, not a fact check.
      - mthoms 7y ago
        Why is the delivery more important to you than the facts? I find that very, very curious. In all honestly, it reads like you're desperately trying to change the topic. For more, see my other comment. But I'm respectfully bowing out of this thread now.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        It doesn't matter which is more important. Two things can be important. The distinction is important precisely for the reason why you think it might not be good for NYT to be legally considered a PAC instead of a newspaper. We have different regulations for different types of organizations. Which one you fall under matters. If it helps, Fox News is in the same boat as NYT here. They are both PACs pretending to be journalism.