April 19, 2006

Wal-Mart Media Conference

(Bentonville, Arkansas) The 2nd Annual Wal-Mart Media Conference began yesterday with about seventy credentialed media representatives in attendance for a tour and various presentations by the company. They came from all across both the print and broadcast spectrum and included, among many, the New York Times, Washington Post, US News & World Report, The Guardian, Women's Wear Daily, ABC News, CNN and CBS News. Notably, two bloggers were also invited and were able to break away from their normal lives and travel to Arkansas. At their own expense, I might add.

Tom Forbes of Palousitics traveled from western Washington State to Bentonville and spent the first day of the conference attending presentations by Wal-Mart executives and taking notes. At intervals, Tom was able to post some of the more salient aspects of the information presented by the speakers.

One of the presentations pertained to Wal-Mart employee health care programs and how they are evolving. Tom provides a good overview and remarks that Wal-Mart's health care programs continue to improve and are quite competitive when compared to others in private industry.

In another session, Tom listened to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee eloquently support Wal-Mart as an example of free market competition which benefits low-income customers through low prices and benefits communities by providing jobs and taxes.

The other blogger in attendance, Rob Port of Say Anything, spent his day among a group of elite media representatives and found himself more engaged by their attitudes and antics than the presentations of the convention. Rob indicates that most of the 'jounalists' exhibited strongly negative attitudes toward Wal-Mart and he wondered whether they were capable of reporting objectively. Anecdotally, Rob's reporting is a good snapshot of the people producing news about Wal-Mart. However, his most interesting remarks describe how the union ambushed and hijacked the media afterward.

After the tour we arrived back at our hotel. Upon walking through the front door I encountered a woman talking on a cell phone pointing those of us getting off the bus to a dining area off the lobby. Since a bunch of the reporters were headed in that direction, I followed.

What I was greeted with upon entering the dining area clearly wasn't on Wal-Mart's agenda. What we were being directed to was a press conference put together by the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (a part of the AFL-CIO) through their front group "WakeUpWal-Mart.com."

The press conference speaker was Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights advocate, who voiced inaccurate and nonsensical attacks against Wal-Mart. In one, Hutchins said poor people don't go to Wal-Mart for low prices, they go because they're poor and oppressed. In another, which I consider to be race-baiting and obscene, Hutchins said that Wal-Mart's health care programs are "like lynching somebody from a seven foot tree instead of an eight foot tree."

Rob doesn't believe the mainstream media will report on the comments at the UFCW press conference. I think he's right. I also think that Wal-Mart's public strategies to burnish its image always seem to backfire because the leftist media use the opportunity to give the microphone and the headlines to Wal-Mart's opponents. As an example, take a look at this morning's Los Angeles Times and you'll find that virtually all of a two-page report of the conference is devoted to demonization of Wal-Mart by its enemies.

Trusting the mainstream media to be objective about Wal-Mart is a mistake.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:12 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I need to make a correction to the above: Trusting the mainstream media to be objective ----- -------- is a mistake.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 19, 2006 07:40 AM (FVbj6)

2 Well, folks, since I'm working and living in the Russellville, Ar. area, I'm getting a lesson on Wal-Mart. To tell you the truth, I don't really like Wal-Mart, but every time I need something, that is where I go. Sorry, mom and pop, it's just more convenient to do all your shopping at Wal-Mart and be through in one trip. And in small towns, it serves as a gathering place for the locals. Even though I don't like Wal-Mart, I love it. What can I say?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)

3 >>>>Trusting the mainstream media to be objective ----- -------- is a mistake Unlike blog sites of course! Look, I love the whole concept of citizen journalism and many of the best sites are well-written and articulated from a stylistic standpoint, BUT I hold few higher than any other media source for their standards of objectivity. That's OK, because most are quite clear about their larger slants -- the honest ones at least. Blogging is a different model, in which less-than-objective opining is part and parcel.

Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 10:21 AM (UHKaK)

4 Jesus Joe, you can sing this little jingle along with the elevator music as you're shopping at Walmart's: Undermine the economy ... whoa yeah .. Daylight come and I watchin' 'em grow Chink, chink, chink the cash register go ... Illegal alien move so slow ... Ah so, Ah so we come to take yo land Chink a chink a c'hang watch the register grow Chink a chink a c'hang, chink a chink a c'hong

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 11:20 AM (FCC6c)

5 Glenn - You lost me at "because most are quite clear about their larger slants." I haven't seen any of the MSM admit to being left-wing house organs with aggressive political agendas. And, in my estimation, publishing dozens of front page Abu Ghraib stories with pictures and not one Mohammad cartoon is not being objective. No, Glenn, the MSM pretends to be objective and denies their seething bias.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2006 03:24 PM (XeoHY)

6 Well, where in the hell do you shop, Larry? And tell the truth for one time in your life, if you know how.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 04:44 PM (rUyw4)

7 Ummm...you guys aren't one of those blogs secretly getting paid by Wal-Mart are you?

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at April 19, 2006 05:00 PM (018Z+)

8 WARNING: New topic (was re: media bias against Wal-Mart) My comment is: why all this big concern for Wal-Mart? Last time I checked, Wal-Mart was the number one player sending America's manufacturing business to China and helping the Chinese communists build up their manufacturing capacity at the expense of our own. Along the same vein, Wal-Mart was very recently busted by the Bush Administration for employing illegal workers. I can't even imagine how blatant a company would have to be in this day and age to get busted by the George "what borders?" Bush Administration for hiring illegals. Wal-Mart's executives are the masters at cutting costs and driving down prices. Good for them, but is that all there is? Look, I fully understand we all benefit in the short run from keeping manufacturing costs down, and I fully understand the concept of comparative advantage. But should we really be placing our country's manufacturing capacity in the hands of communist dictators? Should we go to bat for the people that do more than anything else to make this happen? Personally, I think perhaps we should all be a bit more concerned about this.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 19, 2006 06:14 PM (1g7g2)

9 I wish the hell they were paying me, period. But alas, no. Although I'm not a blogger.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 06:15 PM (rUyw4)

10 Mike-- >>>I haven't seen any of the MSM admit to being left-wing house organs with aggressive political agendas." Uh, possibly because they're not. The myth of media liberalism is just that. Most "MSM" are owned by giant conglomerates, owned by ultra-conservative individuals/holding groups and funded by giant conglomerate -- and by nature conservative-- advertisers. The vast majority would therefore stand to gain nothing from forwarding a leftwing agenda and would more than likely prosper from pushing a rightwing one -- if they chose to take a partisan stand. >>>And, in my estimation, publishing dozens of front page Abu Ghraib stories with pictures and not one Mohammad cartoon is not being objective. That's no comparison. The events at Abu Ghraib were a photographic record of a factual event. The Mohammed cartoons were somebody's opinion, created to express a thought that tended up pissing off a bunch of people. Blogsites are opinion/editorial based. Though often written by well-informed, intelligent and articulate people, they are not held to the same standards or conventions as bonafide media, just like someone's diary is not. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 06:48 PM (oxMjD)

11 The myth of media liberalism is just that. Uh-huh. Keep repeating that and you might convince someone. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us can see what and how the press acts. BTW -- pointing to corporate ownership is not refutation to the facts of their bias. Corporations quite frequently use government power to eliminate competition. In the media realm this is often through things like the "Fairness Doctrine" and "campaign finance reform".

Posted by: Robert Crawford at April 19, 2006 06:53 PM (Gn9tM)

12 How are the Fairness Doctrine and campaign finance reform being used by the media to eliminate competition? Look, the fact they hold your guys' feet to the fire doesn't mean the institution is corrupt. You loved 'em when they covered the Clinton blow job in tedious detail.

Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 07:16 PM (oxMjD)

13 Is nobody banning the idiots anymore?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 20, 2006 05:10 AM (0yYS2)

14 Yep, while they were covering the "Clinton blow job in tedious detail" they were ignoring the "Clinton/Chinese connection". Clinton was so enamored with the Chinese he flung that door open wide. And I agree that Bush should be slamming it shut, but let's call a spade a spade here. I still don't understand why every time Clinton's name pops up it's connected to the blow job to the exclusion of every other aspect of his presidency.

Posted by: Oyster at April 20, 2006 06:19 AM (YudAC)

15 I've said it before and I'll say it again: Clinton fully deserved to be removed from office, but not for getting a blowjob from a frumpy intern. He deserved to be removed for selling out to the Chinese communist dictatorship.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 20, 2006 09:14 AM (Gj4c3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
28kb generated in CPU 0.0191, elapsed 0.1756 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1656 seconds, 264 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.