Russell Roberts picks apart Stephen Greenhouse's "fake" NYTimes story about Wal-Mart paying too little:
There's no real news story here. It's not like someone discovered that Wal-Mart is using slave labor or not paying the minimum wage. That would be a news story. What we have instead is what I'd call a fake news story, generated by a press release from activists that plays to the sensibilities of a newspapers editors, reporters and readers.
Posted by Kevin on May, 4 2005 at 02:07 PM
JR wrote:How is this any more fake than the so-called Social Security "crisis" or the "imminent threat" posed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Seriously, Kevin, you conservatives can dish it out, but you can't take it.
By the way, do you actually know anybody who works at Wal-Mart? I've had many students who worked there and only one of them was happy. Not surprisingly, he's in the management training program right now. I can assure you that to them this story is not fake at all.
JR
-- May 6, 2005 11:35 AM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:I have known several people who worked at Wal-Mart, although I do not know anybody who currently works for them. Most were college dropouts. They all moved on to other retail positions, and I've lost touch with them. Were they happy at WM? Neither happy nor unhappy.
-----
Calling me a conservative is like calling you a communist. For you to have not realized by now that I'm a libertarian is bizarre... Telling me I can't take it is just idiotic drivel. If I couldn't take it, why would I have a "comments" section where people like you could throw invective at me?
-----
For the record, OF COURSE there was no imminent threat of Iraq attacking the US; however, I never had any impression from the administration that they believed such, or wanted me to believe such. You can quote this and quote that administration official, and so will your opponents; been there, done that. A silly argument on both sides, if you ask me.
Also, Social Security is in much better long-run shape than Medicare, though both are insolvent ponzi schemes. You might like them; I don't. In fact, all I want is to opt out of the programs; the system can keep all that I've already contriubted.
Neither is in "crisis" though; however, "transitioning" to personalized (NOT "private") accounts only explicitly spells out liabilities already inherent in the current system, and creates little extra cost except for bureaucracy.
-----
What's "fake" about the article is that there is nothing "new" in the "news". It's manufactured by activism and/or PR. It's not reporting in the traditional sense.
-- May 6, 2005 12:27 PM ∞
JR wrote:My apologies on the conservative thing. I think of you as a "free-market conservative," and forgot about our earlier exchange only because we haven't been discussing social issues.
JR
-- May 6, 2005 12:45 PM ∞
Sam wrote:I'm sure in response to criticism, you'll notice that the Times article has softened its headline ;-)
I hate it when they do that.
"Choosing Sides Over $9.68 an Hour; Parrying Its Critics, Wal-Mart Says Its Wages Must Stay Competitive"-- May 12, 2005 11:13 AM ∞
