[crazygringo]

They can take out ads in national newspapers if they want. Major companies and other institutions run full-page ads with “A letter to...” whenever they need to.

It’s not going to make a dent in their budget. Any notion that a $40B company somehow is unable to make itself heard is ludicrous. This isn’t a mom-and-pop operation.

EDIT: to replies claiming it's not the same or is blackmail because it requires FedEx to spend money to respond... you do realize that it costs the NYT over $300 million/yr to produce, distribute and market their news product? (Yes, the NYT spends money on ads to get more people to read its stuff, too.)

At a corporate level trying to reach millions of people, speech isn't free for anyone. Distribution costs money, for everyone. This isn't blackmail (sheesh), it's how public dialog between companies works period. And my original point stands: both sides are mega-companies that have plenty of money to promote whatever stories they want.

[bazooka_penguin]

This is a ridiculous statement that completely ignores the social expectations of each company. People generally expect reporting media to report the truth unless they have some strong bias (like political), people expect fedex to deliver packages. Deviations from that result in demands that they "stay in [their] lane". A news story by NYT is going to have more impact than some company with a reputation for destroying packages.

[crazygringo]

Then FedEx has their PR team work with journalists at other major news sources to get their side out, which the journalists will be happy to do since it's genuinely newsworthy. (Which companies do every day, it's what PR teams are for.) Same thing in the end.

I will say it one more time: the idea that FedEx, a $40B company, is somehow, in any way, disadvantaged in being able to respond, simply defies credulity.

[bazooka_penguin]

And NYT can say it is big corporate paid advocacy and the FedEx brand will taint it. My point is one brand is seen as more trustworthy in this space, and perhaps in general. You're also assuming that media companies are strictly competitive and dont align on perceived truths

Edit for typos

[pcroh]

That's practically blackmail: we'll run this smear campaign on you and you better buy full-page ads to prove us wrong.

[stock_toaster]

If it's _actually_ false, they can be sued for libel.

[newfriend]

And if it's not _actually_ false, but is incredibly misleading, there is nothing to be done.

[philwelch]

The problem is that they don’t have the perceived credibility of the NYT because the NYT pretends not to be a for-profit corporation.

[dwild]

NYT is spending money to publish this article... that would explains why they are all going to bankrupt /s

NYT sure is spending money, but it is ultimately making money by publishing this article, or else they woudldn't do it. They are making more money by making it more sensational.

FedEx would spends money to responds, ironically, they would have to spends it most probably to NYT. NYT will again spends money to publish that full page ads, sure, but they are making money by publishing it, or else they wouldn't do it either.

They aren't on equal footing. NYT makes money with that article.

[dominotw]

how is it equal footing if one party has to spend extra money