5 ms·

>Economists: increasing shareholder value is investment. Why are you using sneaky word tricks? I said nothing about increasing shareholder value. I clearly sai

by 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.

by mthoms 7y ago

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.