New at Reason

Radley Balko | October 31, 2006

Katherine Mangu-Ward explores the kindler, gentler Wal-Mart.

Comments

|10.31.06 @ 4:45PM|#

You've got to be kidding me. While Wal-Mart may or may not be going green, the tone of that article was more appropriate for a PR department's press release than a political magazine.

Jennifer|10.31.06 @ 6:13PM|#

At Wal-Mart, we've established simple and straightforward environmental goals to sustain our environment and through the 'Everyday Green' exhibit MTV will lend their voice to help share our goals with young people so that together we can make an enormous difference for the future of our planet." The exhibit features a wall of eco-friendly light bulbs powered by stationary bikes

Since my dislike of Wal-Mart is well-known to regular readers of this site, I want to stress that my next comment is NOT a criticism of Wal-Mart, but of whatever people are in charge of this new PR campaign of theirs:

Guys, your company is trying to overcome a bad image. Among those who dislike you, a chief complaint involves the perception that you treat your employees in an extremely shabby manner. In light of this, when trying to make yourself look like a warm-n-fuzzy ecobunny, do NOT connect yourself to exhibits that leave you wide open to snarky comments about just who's going to be stuck pedaling those bikes. And if some company produces an ecofriendly ship that isn't powered by gasoline but lots and lots of galley guys using oars, don't align yourselves with THAT, either.

Dumbasses.

Paul|10.31.06 @ 7:08PM|#

"What is truly sustainable is local sourcing. Of course we will always have trade, but sourcing locally cuts down dramatically on fuel and energy use."

*sigh*

Are we going to have to open up this can of whoop-ass again?

thoreau|11.1.06 @ 12:24PM|#

I second what Number 6 said. This piece wasn't analytical, it was promotional. "They're doing this and they're doing that and it's all great!"

Hey, maybe WalMart is great. Maybe they're the finest and most benign company in the history of the world. Still, I don't read Reason for a simple recitation of facts about good things. I read Reason for analysis. Why something good is happening, what are the implications, how did it come about, etc. etc.

Things like this just seem completely out of place alongside the fine writing of Nick Gillespie, Kerry Howley, Jacob Sullum, Tim Cavanaugh, Brian Doherty, Radley Balko, and others. It almost makes me wonder if there is some overlap (surely accidental!) between the advertising department and the writing staff.

Shikha Dalmia|11.1.06 @ 2:39PM|#

If Wal-Mart really wants a reputation for eco-friendliness, it should start selling Humvees!

thoreau|11.1.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Now, now, Jennifer, that wasn't very nice. If you had any sense of decency you'd make 500 consecutive posts ridiculing every single thing that she says and constantly remind us that you know more than her.

OK, to be serious, if we seem harsh it's because we like the magazine. When we read articles that sound like press releases rather than analysis, it grates on us because we have high expectations for Reason. Analysis need not be critical in the sense of harsh, but it should be more than just reciting a list of great things. Give us an angle, a twist, an insight, something other than a list of factoids.

Also, free market publications run the risk of being accused of unsavory financial conflicts of interests. If your editorial take is anti-regulation and pro-market, people will be tempted to assume that you must have some sort of financial agenda. The best way to discredit that accusation is to offer genuinely interesting and thought-provoking writing. The best way to lend unintentional support to that accusation is to sound like a cheerleader.

Has this piece been in the print edition? I don't recall seeing it there. I hope it didn't get in the print edition, which presumably has a wider audience.

|11.1.06 @ 5:01PM|#

* "What is truly sustainable is local sourcing. Of course we will always have trade, but sourcing locally cuts down dramatically on fuel and energy use." *

Paul- I'm glad somebody else picked up on that. Every time I see this statement, or some variant thereof, I'm overwhelmed by a vision of North Dakotan banana plantations.

KMW strikes again- I thought the piece was inordinately credulous; anything H Lee Scott says should be fastidiously analyzed for ulterior motives and duplicitous intent.