A Times article about Donald Trump's proposal to tax carried interest as ordinary income reports, "the fiscal impact of taxing carried interest income at ordinary income rates would be small: about $2 billion a year in added revenue within a nearly $4 trillion federal budget."
The Times cites no source for this "$2 billion a year" claim.
A February 2013 Times op-ed estimated the annual revenue increase from such a change at between $11 billion and $13 billion. I challenged that estimate at the time, but the Times declined to correct it.
A 2013 Times news article reported, "Changes to the treatment of carried interest could bring in $17 billion over 10 years, according to Congressional estimates."
So now the Times has provided three different estimates of the revenue consequences of this change, with no guidance to readers about which estimate to believe or why the estimates differ so widely. It's disappointingly bad journalism.
Two articles in today's New York Times discuss the presidential candidates and their relations with Wall Street or the banking industry. A front-page article, headlined "Banking Ties Could Hurt Joe Biden in Race With Populist Overtone," reports on Vice President Biden's links to the credit-card industry in Delaware, framing it as a potential vulnerability. A second article appears on the front of the business section and is headlined, "Candidates' Divergent Views on Wall Street." It reports that Jeb Bush was "a paid adviser to Lehman Brothers and Barclays immediately before the financial crisis."
The Times Sunday Review section features a confessional piece by a waiter at an unnamed fancy restaurant. He claims: "Grown men wearing Zegna and Ferragamo would sit at the bar chanting, 'We are the 1 percent!'"
I find this hard to believe, but perhaps I am just traveling in the wrong circles.
The New York Times has a long article about the "bruising workplace" of Amazon.com. It claims in a headline, "the company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers to get them to achieve its ever-expanding ambitions."
An Amazon executive, Nick Ciubotariu, has a LinkedIn post rebutting the Times article and explaining problems and inaccuracies with it.
A professor of journalism at the City University of New York, Jeff Jarvis, who is an Amazon shareholder, has a post complaining that the Times article "lacks two key attributes: context and — I can't quite believe I'm saying this — balance."
The New York Times manages to publish an obituary of Jerome Kohlberg Jr. that, bizarrely, omits any mention of the fact that he owned the Vineyard Gazette, which he bought in 2010 from the Reston family. That is quite a lapse.
A front-page Times news article about the Koch brothers reports, "Relations with the news media could be fractious: If Koch Industries did not like an article, its public-relations team was in the habit of posting email exchanges it had with the reporter."
Retraction Watch has a piece by Times journalist Tracy Tullis, who reports that she told her Times editor she was a donor to People for Ethical Treatment of Animals before she was assigned an article about an elephant at the Bronx Zoo:
The thuggish Iranian government seized the computer of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and has thrown him in jail for more than a year. The New York Times apparently sees this as justification to print anonymous quotes from people describing Mr. Rezaian as a biased journalist, and disclosing the contents of the computer:
Smartertimes reader-participant-watchdog-community-member-content-co-creator Colin writes:
A Times news article under the headline "Boy Scouts Are Poised to End Ban on Gay Leaders" reports, "To gain the acquiescence of conservative religious groups that sponsor many packs and troops, like the Mormon and Roman Catholic Churches, the policy will allow church-run units to pick leaders who agree with their moral precepts."
So to the New York Times the Roman Catholic Church amounts to a "conservative religious group." Have the newspaper's reporters and editors been following their own coverage about Pope Francis's campaign against global warming and income inequality, about his assistance in the reconciliation between the governments of the United States and Communist Cuba, about the church's opposition to the death penalty, its support for the labor movement, its advocacy of comprehensive immigration reform and its support for welfare spending?
Former Times reporter Richard Bernstein, a part owner of two day-spas in Manhattan, has a devastating post up at the New York Review of Books thoroughly debunking — or at the very least credibly challenging — that big New York Times investigative series of the city's nail salons. Mr. Bernstein, calls the Times coverage "demonstrably misleading." Particularly interesting are Mr. Bernstein's thoughts about why the Times got it wrong:
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2015 FutureOfCapitalism LLC