[Rhodes22-list] Political- media bias in reporting exposed... a failure to think things thru
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Fri Jun 27 04:00:13 EDT 2008
You're right, I missed that point.
Michael D. Weisner wrote:
> Herb,
>
> I believe that you missed the point. The problem is with Ed's
> characterization of XOM, not necessarily with the management. I would
> rather have the dividends that Ed indicated were being paid out, but I am
> not unhappy with the decisions of management.
>
> Oh yes, I do vote just as every shareholder may. If I knew how to run XOM,
> I doubt that I would be sailing a Rhodes 22.
>
> Mike
> s/v Shanghaid'd Summer ('81)
> Nissequogue River, NY
>
> From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008
> 10:26 PM
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> When that happens, you shareholders are supposed to get together and
>> VOTE, and make changes. Who do you really WANT to be deciding how the
>> company is run?
>>
>> Michael D. Weisner wrote:
>>
>>> Ed,
>>>
>>> Without commenting directly on the politics of your post, I wish to set
>>> the
>>> record straight as far as the dividend situation with Exxon Mobil
>>> Corporation. As an XOM stockholder I find the following to be wholly
>>> untrue:
>>>
>>> > Now understand what those obscene profits are used for. Yes, they
>>> pay
>>> the
>>> > head fellow an obscene salary. But then they pay all employees
>>> wages.
>>> And
>>> > they pay something called dividends. What are those dividends?
>>> They
>>> are
>>> > payments to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile.
>>>
>>> I bought XOM shares in October 2005 for $55/shr with a quarterly dividend
>>> of
>>> $0.29. The price of gas was about $2.50/gal
>>> (http://www.longislandgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx) here on LI.
>>> Today, XOM trades for $87/shr (158% of '05) and pays a dividend of $0.40
>>> (138% of '05) (it was $0.32 until '07 when it rose to $0.35 and only
>>> last
>>> month did it reach $0.40) while the price of gas is $4.399 (176% of '05)!
>>> The 1Q08 profits were up 17% over '07, $10.9B
>>> (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9121523). While the stock price
>>> has
>>> done well, the huge profits have NOT been distributed to the
>>> shareholders.
>>> Where's my cut?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
>>> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>
>>> From: "Tootle" <ekroposki at charter.net>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:53
>>> AM
>>>
>>>
>>>> The author of Brad's Power Line Blog said, "I think it's fair to say
>>>> that
>>>> the
>>>> mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by
>>>> the
>>>> opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political
>>>> agenda.
>>>>
>>>> It is important to understand what that unstated political agenda is.
>>>> In
>>>> my
>>>> own words I summarize it as the destruction of America. And those on
>>>> still
>>>> on this forum say I am overstating or exaggerating the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Let us understand what Obama has said about oil companies. He has said
>>>> several times that an obscene or windfall profits tax is in order. So
>>>> what
>>>> is the result of such a tax?
>>>>
>>>> Before you begin to assert that there are a real obscene profits made by
>>>> oil
>>>> companies, that is for example Exxon Mobile, compare their profits with
>>>> other businesses. Let us compare their profits with say, Microsoft. As
>>>> I
>>>> read the numbers, Exxon Mobil is about one third ( 1/3rd ) as much.
>>>>
>>>> Now understand what those obscene profits are used for. Yes, they pay
>>>> the
>>>> head fellow an obscene salary. But then they pay all employees wages.
>>>> And
>>>> they pay something called dividends. What are those dividends? They
>>>> are
>>>> payments to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile.
>>>>
>>>> What are shareholders? Those are holders of pieces of paper who say
>>>> that
>>>> they are owners, stakeholders in that obscene company. And who are
>>>> those
>>>> noxious owners of shares of Exxon Mobile?
>>>> Well, some are people, individuals, and members of this forum. Others
>>>> are
>>>> mutual funds, retirement funds and other companies.
>>>>
>>>> And who are these salubrious mutual funds and retirement funds? Well
>>>> both
>>>> are groups of individuals, people like on this forum who have gotten
>>>> together and put their earnings from working into a collective fund that
>>>> purchases equities (aka stocks) for building a supply of money that can
>>>> be
>>>> used later to pay for retirement.
>>>>
>>>> Simply put the obscene earnings that Obama wants nationalized are
>>>> savings
>>>> by
>>>> working people like most on this list.
>>>>
>>>> And what will be the result of such action by Obama and his cohorts? It
>>>> will be the weakening of companies so penalized. It could even destroy
>>>> those companies. What would destruction of those companies mean?
>>>>
>>>> It would wipe out parts of mutual funds and retirement accounts. All
>>>> that
>>>> those people (you people) have worked for and saved for wiped out!
>>>>
>>>> And are there others who own stock in these companies? Yes, foreign
>>>> investors own stock in American companies. And they do so because those
>>>> companies have been shown to be stable and secure investments of
>>>> capital.
>>>>
>>>> If you harm American companies or as Maxine Waters wants to do,
>>>> nationalize
>>>> them, what effect will that have on foreign investments? The value of
>>>> “ALL”
>>>> American companies will become suspect and foreign investors will go
>>>> elsewhere. This would result in the value destruction of “ALL” mutual
>>>> funds
>>>> and failure of retirement accounts to pay retirees.
>>>>
>>>> And why do socialist want to do this? The failure of the American
>>>> economic
>>>> system would make you all wards of the state. This result would give
>>>> the
>>>> state power over all. This religion would make them Gods on earth.
>>>>
>>>> My analylsis shows that Obama and his socialist friends and fellow
>>>> travelers
>>>> are despots, false gods or simply agents of Satan trying to enslave you
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> Ed K
>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Say it ain't so! Brad
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>
>>>>> (from PowerLine)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> War Coverage Fades Away
>>>>>
>>>>> The New York
>>>>> Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin>confirms
>>>>> what we've all observed: as violence in Iraq recedes, our news
>>>>> outlets take less interest in events there:
>>>>>
>>>>> According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant
>>>>> who
>>>>> monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been
>>>>> "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three
>>>>> newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared
>>>>> with
>>>>> 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The "CBS Evening News" has devoted the
>>>>> fewest
>>>>> minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC's "World News" and 74
>>>>> minutes
>>>>> on "NBC Nightly News." (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes
>>>>> long.)
>>>>>
>>>>> CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq,
>>>>> where
>>>>> some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it's understandable, in a way, that coverage would be
>>>>> "massively
>>>>> scaled back" when there is less violence to report on. One wonders,
>>>>> though,
>>>>> whether the change may be due in part to the fact that network
>>>>> executives
>>>>> are more excited about publicizing apparent failure in Iraq than
>>>>> success
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> The journalists who complained to the Times about their employers' lack
>>>>> of
>>>>> interest in Iraq and Afghanistan also noted that interest has flagged
>>>>> among
>>>>> the American public:
>>>>>
>>>>> On "The Daily Show," Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists
>>>>> when
>>>>> she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr.
>>>>> McCarthy
>>>>> said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a
>>>>> dinner
>>>>> party "is like a conversation killer."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid that's also true. The conclusion of the Times piece is
>>>>> revealing,
>>>>> too:
>>>>>
>>>>> Journalists at all three American television networks with evening
>>>>> newscasts
>>>>> expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the
>>>>> Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only
>>>>> on
>>>>> the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting that the journalists themselves link their employers'
>>>>> interest in Iraq to the election. I think it's fair to say that the
>>>>> mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by
>>>>> the
>>>>> opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political
>>>>> agenda.
>>>>> Remember al Qaqaa
>>>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008280.php>?
>>>>> That story dominated the news for a week before the 2004 Presidential
>>>>> election. It was a story of great importance, however, only as long as
>>>>> it
>>>>> could be used to help John Kerry's Presidential campaign. Once the
>>>>> election
>>>>> was over, al Qaqaa was never heard of again. With hindsight, that
>>>>> episode
>>>>> might be taken as a paradigm of far too much of the mainstream media's
>>>>> coverage of the war.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't there talk on here along the lines of most of the troops are
>>>>>> supporting Obama? I know, I know, check the archives. I would, but
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> just not important to me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recently I received an email about media bias. I tried to check it
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snopes. They have finally replied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.snopes.com:80/politics/war/raddatz.asp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when these things are done without any way to check things out,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> well
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that is usually the way it is done by the Liberal Northeast Media
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> types...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Political---media-bias-in-reporting-exposed...-tp18071979p18089396.html
>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list