> 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.

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.

The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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-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.

This is the way these arguments usually go:

1. Reporters and editors cannot possibly be aware of their own bias because they have their own world view, through which they perceive their own reality.

2. Because reporters and their editors cannot be aware of their own biases, fundamentally all news is biased, intentionally or unintentionally.

Your argument depends upon #1 to be True. However, people can know their biases and adjust for it. But at the NYT, editors and reporters are aware of their internal biases, so #1 is actually False.

So then #2 leads to something like #3:

3. Fox News, while intentionally biased, provides balance to the obvious left leaning bias of the NYT because of #1 and #2 -- even if they don't fully vet their stories [1].

So personally I would prefer to get my news from people that research and report facts. Facts, in and of themselves, are unbiased.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Fox_News_r...

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.

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

I took advantage of the homestead exemption the last time I filed income tax. Is that news?

Did you spend time brib..lobbying local councilmen to give you that exemption?

Edit: more to the point, what makes you identify as Fedex?

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.

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

What is the same between FedEx and me is the lack of scandal. There is no scandal/news in a corporation following the tax law, just as there is no scandal/news in me following the tax law.

I want to be clear that my intention is not to debate tax law. I think that's irrelevant.

If the NYT wants the law to change in some way, 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 changes to the law. I think they'd be great at it, and I think they have a lot to offer the world in that arena.

Yes? But I did not classify it as scandal, but as news, or as as something of interest to the general populace. In the same vein, I did not discuss journalism as a whole.

I only said that it is news.

You seem to want to move discussion in a completely different direction.

I don't believe that NYT is trying to inform you about some obscure tax bill because it's interesting. It's no more interesting than my tax bill, or any other random corporation that happened to have a non-zero tax bill some year. The only reason it's interesting to you is because you have a particular political interest in this. That's perfectly legitimate for you to have that political interest. If they were just trying to inform you, they could inform you in a way that doesn't have any emotional framing. You could find it easily in their stock report or something. I believe NYT is trying to induce an emotional reaction in you for purely political reasons in order to influence the population towards a particular end goal. That is why they are acting like a PAC and not a newspaper.

That is an odd argument to make. By your definition, news is not news unless it is not of interest to me?

News is not news if its purpose is a specific political outcome. The FedEx stock report, which also includes its tax bill, is news. I hope you can see the difference in purpose between the stock report and the article you just saw.

I see now. You alone are the arbiter what constitutes true news. Everything else propaganda aimed at specific outcome.

It may come as a surprise to you, but even your cherished Fedex stock report is a piece of propaganda aimed at specic audience ( investors ). It even has a singular political aim in mind.

Can you guess what it is?

I'm not the personal arbiter, I'm describing a reasonably objective measure of the difference between straight news journalism and political activism. This measure is available to anyone who understood basic literary analysis in high school, so it's available to almost everyone.

I welcome you to provide a different measure. In your opinion, where is the line? How could all observers reasonably differentiate between a piece of straight news journalism and political propaganda?

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.

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."

>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?

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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?

>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.

You already revealed yourself when you stated you felt like you had a moral claim to something you have no legal claim to. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. But by doing so, you have admitted that this is a matter of political ideology. You further accused me of merely having an opposing political bias to what is being conveyed in the article, doubling down on your own assertion that it is in fact about political propaganda. If it were just straight facts, then neither of our political biases would matter. Because if it were straight journalism it wouldn't be framed in such a way that your political leanings mattered.

Sigh. Again, with the changing of my words. It's really, really annoying.

I never said I felt a moral claim to the lost tax revenue. Ever. I've repeated over and over (and over) that it's the lying to the American people that I, and many others find morally repugnant. I don't know how to state it any clearer. I honestly don't. I've made no comments whatsoever of a political nature. Not one.

Is there something about disliking lying which is inherently political? I learned that lying was bad in kindergarten before I even knew what politics was.

You've already proven yourself to be arguing in bad faith with your "I'm not calling this fake news" lie (see directly above), so there's no point in continuing this conversation.

I guess liars defending liars is exactly what I should have expected.

It is important that people are informed about major US corporations.

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.

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: ???

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.