« The Morality of Abortion: The Dishonest Debate | Main | McCain: Senile, But *Really* Quick on His Feet... »

August 15, 2008

NY TimesWatch: Making It Up As We Go Along Edition

This is priceless, even for the Times:

The paper got out its calculator, multiplied the gross revenues of the companies in the GAO study by 35%, and came up with this classic of economic ignorance:

At a basic corporate tax rate of 35 percent, all the corporations covered in the study in theory owed $875 billion in federal income taxes.

In theory, a company pays 35% of its net income to the feds, not its gross receipts. That reporters and editors at the New York Times should be ignorant of this basic fact is shocking. How in the world can these people purport to instruct the rest of us on economic matters, when they lack the most fundamental understanding of how our tax system works?

Today, a red-faced New York Times issued this correction:

An article on Wednesday about a Government Accountability Office study reporting on the percentage of corporations that paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005 gave an incorrect figure for the estimated tax liability of the 1.3 million companies covered by the study. It is not $875 billion. The correct amount cannot be calculated because it would be based on the companies paying the standard rate of 35 percent on their net income, a figure that is not available. (The incorrect figure of $875 billion was based on the companies paying the standard rate on their $2.5 trillion in gross sales.)

Must be those rigorous layers of editorial fact checking at work again.

Posted by Cassandra at August 15, 2008 08:23 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2326

Comments

I wonder if that was a Freudian slip? Maybe they just spilled the beans on BHO's economic policy. Or are the really that stupid?

Either way, the damage is done and we are left with a Grey Lady with no credibility.

Pathetic!

Posted by: vet66 at August 15, 2008 02:40 PM

Either way, the damage is done and we are left with a Grey Lady with no credibility.

The NYT's credibility is gauged by it's circulation.

*cue receding Doppler whistle*

Posted by: BillT at August 15, 2008 03:00 PM

I think you could find high school kids with more acumen than this. Or maybe the Times IS using high school kids to write their stuff.

In the 1920's, someone at the Times wrote an article refuting the effectiveness of a rocket in space (vacuum) because there was "nothing to push against". I think it was written by an engineer of some kind that the Times dug up, who apparently didn't understand Newtonian mechanics (chortle!). There was a retraction of that story sometime in 1969, just befor Apollo 11 was launched for the Moon landing.

So yeah, they have been MASSIVELY wrong before.

Time(s) marches on!

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at August 15, 2008 05:06 PM

No wonder they don't care about high taxes, they have never understood the difference between gross pay and net pay on their pay stub. This is what we call a teachable moment.

Posted by: Pile On at August 15, 2008 07:47 PM

Would the 'Times' consider hiring the Ebb and Flow Institute, and the holder of the John Locke chair from the Institute as the best teacher for this moment?

Just wondering. It wouldn't hurt. I have heard that the holder of the John Locke chair has been teaching a lot the last few years.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at August 16, 2008 09:55 AM

The Times conducts hit and run attacks on the Progress for Humanity, because they know it is stronger than they.

But, as we all know, insurgencies can also be hit by insurgencies, like the Sunnis did to AQ. It all depends upon who the Times have power over, and I suspect that they would be us, the individuals.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 16, 2008 05:09 PM

The Power of the Press is subservient to the Power of the Pocketbook.

If nobody purchased a copy of the NYT, the Grey Lady would go Tango Uniform in five weeks.

Posted by: BillT at August 16, 2008 05:46 PM

If they had any understanding of economics they would not be leftists.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 16, 2008 06:52 PM

If nobody purchased a copy of the NYT, the Grey Lady would go Tango Uniform in five weeks.

It would still not remove the source of news, which is mostly AP and Reuters. They will always have newspapers or medias to carry their story and provide them moola.

The New York Times is simply influential in terms of setting what the cover story is, here in the States. Remove them, and it does not greatly change the dynamic world wide, or perhaps even state wide given the increasing reliance on internet news (which gets their stuff the same place the NYTimes got theirs).

The Left will always subordinate economical gain to ideological gain, Bill. Taking out their economy for one newspaper, does nothing against the ideology itself.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 16, 2008 09:20 PM

Ahhhh, but the Left is pushing its ideology to *achieve* economic gain.

Remember Johnny Hart's Golden Rule -- "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

And I could make a case for the NYT being influential strictly because of snob appeal. During the NYT's rise, the Journal-American and the Sun provided the same news from the same sources, but used screaming 120-point headlines -- and came to be viewed as reading material unfit for *sophisticaed* tastes.

Posted by: BillT at August 17, 2008 05:37 AM

"And I could make a case for the NYT being influential strictly because of snob appeal"...blogger/screenwriter Robert Avrech used the term "fashion accessory."

Posted by: david foster at August 17, 2008 11:42 AM

Does anyone else remember the Death-of-an-Era, Level-Five Teapot-Tempest that erupted when the NYT first put a

*gasp!*

picture on the front page?

Posted by: BillT at August 17, 2008 02:10 PM

How would you then justify the New York Times giving their ideological pals, Code Pink or MoveOn, the ad space to attack Petraeus at half the price?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 17, 2008 05:35 PM

I wouldn't argue that the Left, as a movement and an alliance of ideologies hostile to human progress, knows that money is the sinews of their war machine, but I doubt that the New York Times is as long term thinking as their intellectual and spiritual masters.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 17, 2008 05:36 PM

And I could make a case for the NYT being influential strictly because of snob appeal.

I made a similar point here, except my proposition was that the Left aren't hurt substantially if the NewYorkTimes fall economically because the New York Times provides the Left name recognition and snob membership appeal. The actual news or propaganda, is produced elsewhere and dissimilated via other avenues quicker and more efficiently.

It would be better, in my view, if we could infiltrate and turn the Times to our ends. A spy we know of and which we can feed disinformation to, is more valuable than trying to crack new spy networks from nothing.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 17, 2008 05:38 PM

How would you then justify the New York Times giving their ideological pals, Code Pink or MoveOn, the ad space to attack Petraeus at half the price?

For the same reason sharks don't bite lawyers -- professional courtesy.

Posted by: BillT at August 17, 2008 05:52 PM

In this case I think if the shark bit Code Pink, the shark would shrivel up and die.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 17, 2008 06:32 PM

Unlikely the shark would bite in the first place. They identify prey by smell...

Posted by: BillT at August 18, 2008 12:51 AM

Surely you would not be so uncouth as to imply that the ladies of Code Pink are in any way unpleasant smelling.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 18, 2008 07:02 PM

> That reporters and editors at the New York Times should be ignorant of this basic fact is shocking.

The hell it is.

;oP

.

Posted by: Obloodyhell at August 21, 2008 07:09 AM

> This is what we call a teachable moment.

They're libtards. "Teachable" is not an event to occur in their lifespans.

Posted by: Obloodyhell at August 21, 2008 07:10 AM

Uh, y'all DO realize that, while the NYT is on the stock exchange, the stock in question is all NON-VOTING stock. Such "owners" are entitled to profits (and losses) but no say whatsoever in how the company is run. All the actual voting stock is still in the hands of the Schulzbergers, who are free to run it into the ground if it suits them, and apparently it does.

Posted by: Obloodyhell at August 21, 2008 07:20 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)