Monday, January 19, 2004
IraqNow Targets Press's Financial Coverage
Just for the craic, I surfed over to some other major personal finance magazines websites, and searched their web archives to see if I could identify any articles dealing with the combat zone federal income tax exclusion.
There's been a gazillion pages devoted to controversies surrounding the 9/11 victim's compensation fund, which directly affects about 3,000 families.
The combat zone exclusion, on the other hand, together with the low income retirement credit, is only a tax matter that’s going to affect over 250,000 families this year, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars apiece.
You would think they could squeeze it in somewhere.
Well, the methodology isn't perfect--I don't have access to Dow Jones Interactive or Lexis/Nexis out here. But I can search the pages' archives themselves for relevant articles.
Here’s what I’ve got:
CNNfn: The chintzy little letter already mentioned a couple of days ago.
Money Magazine: “no results found.“
Fortune Magazine: ”no entries matched your search criteria.”
Morningstar: “No results found.”
Wall Street Journal: unable to download search page for some reason.
Smart Money: "No such luck."
New York Times Business/Financial pages: "Dream on."
Worth Magazine: “Well, if you have to ask…”
Now, I understand if the New York Times print version treats it lightly—there just aren’t a lot of Army personnel in New York City. And I know we who will ‘never get rich’ are simply not in Worth’s ultra-snooty demographic.
But the others profess to be national media outlets.
That’s how tuned in mass market editors are to the military community.
No word yet on how many veterans each of these organizations have on their business desks. It’s not a lot, though.
Time, Inc. is happy to name the American Soldier as Person of the Year on its flagship. But don’t ask its Fortune Group*, or the other big finance titles, to cover the financial interests of millions of servicemen and their families. But military people—and public employees in general—represent a hole in their personal finance coverage you could drive a tank through.
There's been a gazillion pages devoted to controversies surrounding the 9/11 victim's compensation fund, which directly affects about 3,000 families.
The combat zone exclusion, on the other hand, together with the low income retirement credit, is only a tax matter that’s going to affect over 250,000 families this year, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars apiece.
You would think they could squeeze it in somewhere.
Well, the methodology isn't perfect--I don't have access to Dow Jones Interactive or Lexis/Nexis out here. But I can search the pages' archives themselves for relevant articles.
Here’s what I’ve got:
CNNfn: The chintzy little letter already mentioned a couple of days ago.
Money Magazine: “no results found.“
Fortune Magazine: ”no entries matched your search criteria.”
Morningstar: “No results found.”
Wall Street Journal: unable to download search page for some reason.
Smart Money: "No such luck."
New York Times Business/Financial pages: "Dream on."
Worth Magazine: “Well, if you have to ask…”
Now, I understand if the New York Times print version treats it lightly—there just aren’t a lot of Army personnel in New York City. And I know we who will ‘never get rich’ are simply not in Worth’s ultra-snooty demographic.
But the others profess to be national media outlets.
That’s how tuned in mass market editors are to the military community.
No word yet on how many veterans each of these organizations have on their business desks. It’s not a lot, though.
Time, Inc. is happy to name the American Soldier as Person of the Year on its flagship. But don’t ask its Fortune Group*, or the other big finance titles, to cover the financial interests of millions of servicemen and their families. But military people—and public employees in general—represent a hole in their personal finance coverage you could drive a tank through.
Comments:
Post a Comment
