Punch, got a big raise and bonus for his great leadership in 2005.
Posted on 04/17/2006 10:07:42 PM PDT by neverdem
VERIZON had a pretty bad year in 2005, but its chief executive did fine. Although Verizon's earnings dropped by more than 5 percent and its stock fell by more than a quarter, he received a 48 percent increase in salary and compensation. This handsome payout was based on the recommendation of an independent consulting firm that relied on Verizon (and the chief executive's good will) for much of its revenue. When asked about this conflict of interest, the consulting firm explained that it had "strict policies in place to ensure the independence and objectivity of all our consultants."
Please stop laughing.
The person who made this statement was almost certainly sincere. Consultants believe they can make objective decisions about the companies that indirectly employ them, just as legislators believe that campaign contributions don't influence their votes.
Doctors scoff at the notion that gifts from a pharmaceutical company could motivate them to prescribe that company's drugs, and Supreme Court justices are confident that their legal opinions are not influenced by their financial stake in a defendant's business, or by their child's employment at a petitioner's firm. Vice President Dick Cheney is famously contemptuous of those who suggest that his former company received special consideration for government contracts.
Voters, citizens, patients and taxpayers can barely keep a straight face. They know that consultants and judges are human beings who are pulled by loyalties and pushed by animosities, and that drug reps and lobbyists are human beings who wouldn't be generous if generosity didn't pay dividends. Most people have been around people long enough to have a pretty good idea of what drives their decisions, and when decision-makers deny what seems obvious to the rest of us, the rest of us get miffed. Sell our democracy to the highest bidder, but don't insult...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Amazing. A "Journalist" is mocking some one for claiming to be "Objective". Look in the mirror DANIEL GILBERT
for someone to be laughing at.
Of course, no one who is biased is actually aware of the ways in which bias affects his view of the world. That's why it's called "bias," after all.
(steely)
If you read the whole article, you'll see you are being unfair, he isn't a journalist, but a professor of psychology. (I know, that's a whole other kettle of fish) He's not mocking people for claiming to be objective, but rather speaking of a "perception gap." I don't know how accurate these studies are, but they don't sound too radical.
Now the professor should write an article about the 'perception gap' between what reporters THINK they are saying and what they are ACTUALLY saying.
That reminds me of this:
" If the initiators of an information-dissemination project are the producers of the funding, are we supposed to believe that the recipients of their money changed their views to get it? Since finding experts who already share the producers' views is NOT difficult for competent people, I always think the accusers are projecting their own ethical failings and lack of principles onto their targets. In other words, since THEY would change THEIR views if they were paid enough, they assume anyone else would." -- from THIS page
Can't read the whole thing since I am not a Time's member. But I find it laughable that a rant about the "objectivity of "Consultants" is published by a group that otherwise spends all it's time claiming to be masters of objectivity. The number one group pushing this "we are objective" nonsense are "Journalists". However, I will bet you they don't list "Journalists" in the groups they take to tasks with this article do they?
For "Journalists" to sanctimoniously publish this article is absurd. This argument apply fully several hundred % MORE TO them. This is clearly a case of the gutter pipe calling the garden hose dirty.
I had to come here to find out about ANSWER, the American Socialists "progressives" etc
LOL! Thanks for the link. "Follow the money" only takes you so far. Some folks will do anything for power or money.
IMHO, most folks prefer to sleep with a clear conscience, even if what they believe to be true is factually wrong.
YET, those same people are unaware that socialism IS slavery by givernment.. Like in Canada, URP, and most of the U.S.A.
This New York Times' author is too clever by half - - his analogy between Verizon's charade and campaign contributions is lazy and obviously flawed.
Like Reagan said, people didn't give him financial support because they wanted to influence him to do certain things; they gave him financial support because they liked what he said he would do.
Of course, this honest philosophy flies in the face of the New York Times' basic assumption that all politicians are corrupt - - an assumption they no doubt arrived at by watching their own party (the Democrats) get thoroughly bought and sold over the past thirty years by big labor, big abortion, big "jackpot justice", and the education mafia.
Yes, you can. Do you think I would pay for something that I or anyone else can read for free, or that I would bother to post if everyone else couldn't read it? You can register for free, or you can use http://bugmenot.com/. You don't have to subscribe. But whatever you do, you should read some more about whatever you wish to comment upon, before you have your proverbial foot, i.e. your keyboard, in your mouth.
But I find it laughable that a rant about the "objectivity of "Consultants" is published by a group that otherwise spends all it's time claiming to be masters of objectivity.
That's the last thing that this guest OpEd column is, if at all, a rant. It's an article about the prevalence of false perception on both sides of any issue just because the study was funded by any particular special interest group.
That's just a set-up. Did you read the whole guest OpEd? I'd be surprised if you wrote that you read the complete article.
It did so implicitly. Did you read the complete article?
There. Fixed.
I was responding only to the analogy.
Yes, I read the entire article - - it was well written and well researched.
By the way, thanks for the response. I usually don't click on NY Times links because you have to register, or at least you USED TO have to register. This one came up in full.
There just HAS to be something in here we 'debaters' can latch onto!
interesting perspective ping
Anyone who wants to influence me...Freepmail me for my paypal account.
I'm always objectively appalled at the lack of objectivity out there.
Punch, got a big raise and bonus for his great leadership in 2005.
Good point.
Great chart!
The best a journalist can do is to try to be objective. I try to be. Some claim they are though, which is a load of crap.
Some charts leave their readers cold. However that chart leaves conservatives with that nice warm feeling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.