An Example of Bad Journalism
This is the worst case of journalism I’ve ever seen. The purpose of the article is obvious: paint Wal-Mart as big, greedy, evil and naughty-naughty. Let’s analyze what actually is going on.
The contract with Wal-Mart and the lady was that Wal-Mart doesn’t have to pay for your medical expenses if you get someone else to pay them. That makes sense. The CNN report calls that the “fine print”. BS. That’s not “fine print” that’s obvious. You don’t need to have medical expenses paid for twice.
The only reasoning given in this case for the lady (yes, I would say that this reporter tried everything in her power to flex a little influence for the “underdog” in this situation, regardless of the facts or contracts) is that “In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.”
Read that again. Wal-Mart is a “Giant”. Understood — yet loaded language. Now seriously, go read it. Why was that sentence placed there? To show a comparison between the rich and the poor. Wal-Mart had a single spokesperson represented — the man had tons of ways to make his points, even though HE AGREED THAT WAL-MART WAS RIGHT.
The point of the story? The poor lady might not have a right to the money. She might not “need” it for medical expenses — but daggumit, she’s poor. Wal-Mart’s not. Oh, and Wal-Mart is evil.
Journalism my foot. That’s pure argumentation. Get a blog lady, and leave journalism for journalists.
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of
Jane said,
March 25th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Yeah, and why don’t you grow a heart? Or go buy one at Wal-Mart.
Steve said,
March 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Of course Wal Mart is legally correct in this situation–Mrs. Shank signed the paperwork, the courts decided correctly according to the law. However, there is a difference here between what is correct legally, and what is “the Right Thing to do”. If you witness someone being murdered, legally you don’t have to testify against the killer in court, but you should do it, because it is the right thing to do to bring a killer to justice. Although they are legally correct, suing this woman for almost a half-million is definitely not the right thing to do. Look into your conscience and think about what your parents taught you about right and wrong and this should be a no brainer. They can certainly afford it, and additionally it would have been great PR once the story got out, which makes business sense since the company suffers from an image problem. Maybe I’m just sympathetic to her because I spent two tours in Iraq and if I had been killed my mom would have been devastated as well.
Monica said,
March 26th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I think there are several players at fault in this story not just Wall-Mart: the person who cause the pain and suffering to Mrs Shank by not driving carefully and causing the accident; the lawyers that got such a big chunk of the money (I understand they have to get paid for their work defending this family, but to take 1/2 of the money?); and finally Wall-Mart’s heath care division for asking for more money than what they actually paid for.
I do not agree with you with the fact that she doesn’t need the money. She does! The air she still breathes might be free, but everything else in her life comes with a price tag, and she will never be able to work again!
Grow some heart and compasion for those who need it–You never know when your turn will be. There is nothing wrong with making money whether is a little or a lot, but there is something very wrong (specially for those who have so much) with stressing out a family that has already gone thru so much pain and suffering by taking away the money left that could at least pay for this disabled person to be a little more comfortable while she is here on earth!
Brian said,
March 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I think this is a tragic example of government stupidity from the article:
“The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.”
That’s just plain wrong. (if it is accurate, and who knows about that)
Personally, if I were Walmart, I’d let them keep the money. But there really is nothing that any of us outside the case can (or should) do, so I really don’t see the point of the article. I guess I have to agree with you, Shaun.
>Brian
dave m. said,
March 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Let me tell where your problem lies. It’s with the American public.
When your typical Joe reads the phrase “retail giant”, what does it conjure up images of? It paints the exact image you think it paints. An overreaching corporation that shouldn’t be trusted. But why does that image come up, instead of a giant, efficient company that drawfs its competition, and is a symbol of American productivity?
It’s because America has had a bad history with such big corporations. The shot heard ’round the world that started the Revolutionary War has corporate malfeasense, in part, in its roots, specifically, the East Indian Tea Company and its anti-competitive regulation that it set up with the government of England.
Upton Sinclair and the meat packaging companies of Chicago is another example. America reacted to such muckraking because it understands that too much unregulated power in the hands of one small group of people can lead to abuses of that power.
Why didn’t the American people react the way your typical right winger does when The Junglel was published in the early 1900’s? Why didn’t they look at the book and scoff at it, because everyone involved was doing so voluntairily and under contract, so it must be legitimate?
If someone falls into the meat grinder and ends up getting killed, isn’t that THEIR problem for not being more responsible about their actions in the workplace?According to right wing ideology, working in a meat grinding plant is risky, and you assume that risk when you sign up to work there. If you don’t want to risk that, then don’t sign the contract!
Isn’t it that cut and dry with you people?
America isn’t that kind of country, and you bastards react the way you do to articles like the one you critiqued because you KNOW it’s not that kind of country, you just WANT it to be.
You ache for the old days of people not giving a shit about anything that isn’t occuring within arms length of them, which I’d argue was well, well before any sort of Enlightenment thinking. You can’t stand that one person might care about another person. Why else would you be angry at an article that can be perceived as pro-”underdog”?
So its not this particular peice of journalism you have a problem with. It is how the American people will understand what is being said that you have a problem with.
Daniel said,
March 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
If Wal-Mart allowed this woman to keep the money they would be hurting the other people in the health plan, their rates would go up and if enough people tried to bend the rules and get money they are not entitled to then the entire plan would collapse and no one would get any health care.
She had the option of staying on the Wal-Mart plan and having her medical expenses paid for, however she chose to pursue a legal suit against the persons responsible for her injury. She made a poor decision of lawyers who asked for far too little and took way too much; why should Wal-Mart and the other employees who are in the health care plan have to pay for her poor decision?
Dissenter said,
April 17th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Assuming for the sake of argument that charity is the correct course of action, why must Wal-Mart make the sacrifice? Have all those who have claimed that Wal-Mart should have let her keep the money donated some themselves? I doubt it. Then why should Wal-Mart?
Why must avoid confusing legal and moral duties. Just because one can find a moral duty does not mean that a legal duty exists, and only legal duties are enforceable. Meanwhile, the moral duties apply equally to all, and no one who has not donated money himself can fault Wal-Mart specifically. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Finally, what about Wal-Mart’s obligations to its shareholders? Wal-Mart itself is large, but the ultimate effect of paying the money would be a decrease in profits, which would ultimately hurt stock prices, which would impact primarily the retirement plans of middle class workers. Wal-Mart does not, in my opinion, have a right to engage in acts of charity: it should leave the decision to its shareholders individually.