Comments on: Advisory: David Cay Johnston column on Rupert Murdoch is withdrawn

By: wdik

wdik — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:08:45 +0000

TinyOne, what is the real story on GE’s taxes? Contrary to popular belief, did they in fact pay taxes? Where can I read the truth thx

By: RedSteve

RedSteve — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:19:40 +0000

You now have probably hundreds of blogs linking to your original (inaccurate) article that links to a “page not found” page. You should link up the previous article address to a/the page explaining and retracting the erroneous article. Readers shouldn’t have to go looking for an explanation of the mistake like I did. The original link should now admit and explain your error!

I am not a News Corp. fan, but this has seriously damaged your credibility.

By: TinyOne

TinyOne — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:42:03 +0000

I think it needs to be made clear that in NO WAY was it necessary to know that the reporting convention had been changed in 2007 to catch this error. Cash interest paid, the line item directly below the tax numbers DCJ cited, was negative as well. Sale proceeds from investments, the next line, was positive. EVERY INDICATION suggested that negative numbers were outflows from the company, positive numbers were inflows to the company.

This is what happens what you have a dedicated ideologue reporting on technical topics. This is a case of serious and gross incompetence and stupidity by DCJ and the responsible editors. There should be terminations– truly an embarrassment.

By: TinyOne

TinyOne — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:23:41 +0000

I will be laughing myself to sleep tonight, but I do give credit for the retraction, which the NY Times never had the stones to do with their shameful story on GE’s taxes.