Another Reason Not to Shop at Wal-Mart
Oct 21
Wal-Mart has decided not to sell the Daily Show’s America book:
The chain canceled its order for the book after learning that page 99 features a doctored photo of nine naked bodies with the heads of the Supreme Court justices attached.The book also contains cutout robes, and encourages the reader to “restore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe.”
But Wal-Mart execs felt that the shock of full frontal nudity might be too much for the unsuspecting shopper’s eyes.
“We felt a majority of our customers would not be comfortable with the image in our stores,” Wal-Mart spokeswomen Karen Burk told the New York Daily News.
Gee, Wally World, why not let the customer decide what they do or don’t want?
See, this is exactly the kind of bullshit that Wal-Mart does that has made me a loyal non-customer for nearly a decade. I don’t need a big retailer babysitting me and telling me what I do and don’t want to see/read/hear. Give me the choice. If they stock it and it isn’t selling, that’s one thing, but to refuse to stock it at all? Yes, that’s their right, and it’s my right to refuse to shop there.
But I’m fortunate: I live in a big enough city that I have plenty other options. In small-town America, it’s way different. Wal-Mart comes in to town, drives all the competition out of business, and then restricts what they will and won’t sell, and people have no choice but to accept it. On the local level, in many areas, Wal-Mart has a monopoly and abuses it. Just because they have competition in the more populous areas of the country doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable for their monopolistic practices throughout much of the rest of the country.
In the meantime, do like I do: Just say ‘no’ to Wal-Mart.
#1 by Les Jones at October 21st, 2004
Those hypocrites! Wal-Mart used to sell Rush Limbaugh books that had pictures of wide-open beavers!
Oh, wait. No they didn’t. Never mind.
P.S. Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian.
#2 by tgirsch at October 21st, 2004
Les:
I imagine if I looked really, really hard, I’d find something in your comment that’s somehow relevant to my post, but on first glance, it completely eludes me. As far as I’m concerned this isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) a partisan issue.
In any case, I don’t think a book should have to pass some sort of “global test” to be stocked on Wal-Mart’s shelves.
#3 by Les Jones at October 21st, 2004
If this was something other than Jon Stewart’s book, would it have rated a post?
But OK, if it’s not politics, let’s talk about that. Is it OK for Wal-Mart to have a policy of not stocking books or magazines that contain full frontal nudity? We’re not talking about government censorship here: you can still buy books with full frontal nudity and much more at other places, or over the Internet. (The story even says that Stewart’s book is available at Wal-Mart.com.) But Wal-Mart has decided not to sell the book in stores, just as they don’t sell other things their customers might not want their children to see, like Playboy or Maxim. So what’s wrong with that?
Many theaters don’t show movies that are NC-17. Is there anything wrong with that?
#4 by tgirsch at October 21st, 2004
Les:
Actually, yes it would have. As I said in the post, I’ve been railing against Wal-Mart for years. In some cases, it’s been them refusing to carry certain country albums, and I despise country. It’s the principle of the matter.
As to the issue of full-frontal nudity, it’s a bit more complicated than you seem to indicate, unless you think Penthouse and National Geographic are equivalent: both contain nudity, after all. In this case, it’s full-frontal nudity buried on page 99 of a book; how is that more offensive than the cover of a typical women’s magazine? If they’re that worried about “the children,” they could put the book on a high shelf, or seal it, or put a warning label on it, or all of the above.
If it makes you feel better, I’m not calling for any laws to be passed to make it illegal for Wal-Mart to do what they’re doing. And in fact, as I thought I pointed out quite explicitly, as long as there’s competition around, it’s not that big of a problem. But in many, many places, there is no such competition. And I’m sorry, but not everyone even has internet access, particularly in the very areas most likely to have Wal-Mart as their only shopping option, so that’s not a sufficient alternative outlet.
#5 by Les Jones at October 21st, 2004
unless you think Penthouse and National Geographic are equivalent
Of course not, but I don’t think National Geographic and Stewart’s book are equivalent, either, based on the linked article’s description of the nudity in the book.
FWIW, I think Wal-Mart’s reluctance to sell Maxim, or to sell CDs with adult lyrics is a little silly, but I think they’re well within their rights to sell what they want, and I think you do, too. In other words, we both think there’s a line somewhere, but we disagree about where the line should be.
#6 by tgirsch at October 21st, 2004
I think we disagree not only on where the line needs to be drawn, but on who needs to draw the line. As I said, I don’t support any state intervention into those sales decisions.
I do support government intervention to stop many of Wal-Mart’s monopolistic practices, but that’s an entirely separate issue (although it also factors in to why I won’t shop there).
#7 by Churlant at October 21st, 2004
Ah, Wal-Mart… I remember when they stopped carrying issues of “Maxim” magazine because of the front covers and internal (often sexually-explicit) articles.
And yet they continue to sell “Cosmopolitan”, which contains plenty of the same. The front covers of numerous body-building magazines (and indeed, some women’s magazines) also present nearly naked women in suggestive poses.
It was at this point the hypocrisy became so thick, you could cut it with a plastic knife… Wal-Mart generic of course.
-JC
#8 by Jean at October 21st, 2004
You all must lead extremely boring lives to spend this much time debating what Wal-Mart should or should not carry in its stores.
I just discovered this site and based on the current posts, have determined it is not worth my time.
#9 by Les Jones at October 21st, 2004
I think we disagree not only on where the line needs to be drawn, but on who needs to draw the line. As I said, I don’t support any state intervention into those sales decisions.
Neither do I. I think we’re in agreement on that.
#10 by tgirsch at October 21st, 2004
Jean:
Sorry you feel that way. There has been more emphasis on non-political issues lately than normal. The “straighter posts” at left on the main page are more representative of our political analysis.
#11 by SayUncle at October 21st, 2004
Heh. But it was worth her time to tell you that. I shop at walmart becaus I can get 550 rounds of 22LR for $6.
#12 by tgirsch at October 21st, 2004
Yeah, you’ve got to love a store that keeps a Jon Stewart book off the shelves to “protect” the customers and their children, but puts boxes of .22 ammo on the bottom shelf (at least they did the last time I was there). Nudity bad, firearms and ammo good!
#13 by F-Stop at October 21st, 2004
Wal-Mart is drek. People that I work with in the office who shop there also think it’s drek, yet necessary drek. I’ll admit, it’s very convient, but I guess i’m still hanging on to my ideology at 29. I remember when they started censoring the music they sold…it’s certainly within their right to do so, just like it’s within my right to laugh as I drive next door to TARGET. You could “almost” draw political lines between the two retailers. Target is more Blue State, Wal-Mart is more Red State… ;>
I like progressive thought and a smart selection with my low prices, thank you.
#14 by F-Stop at October 21st, 2004
P.S. $6 for a brick of .22LR is a good buy though…