[Rhodes22-list] Political- media bias in reporting exposed... a failure to think things thru

Michael D. Weisner mweisner at ebsmed.com
Fri Jun 27 00:08:30 EDT 2008


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
> __________________________________________________
> 




More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list