Print

Print
At the risk of adding to waffle (debate!!), I think the type of posting on mediawatch has changed over the last 2 years. I looked back at some of the early posts, and they tended to be of the following types:
I am more than happy to see the regular articles reporting the news that are posted by some subscribers - they are a brilliant fund of information for someone who is generally too busy (read lazy) to pick up a newspaper. However I would also like to see the list used for what I thought was its original purpose: to pool resources and provide a common front in dealing with the apparent inability of the media to look beyond their own narrow interests and discourses. As Tim suggested, maybe a statement of clarification from David Miller would be helpful......


Mark

Tim Gopsill wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Friends
 
This is an interesting story, but it does raise again this question of what the database is for.
 
My impression at the start was that it was an information resource, for examples and analysis of media coverage of the invasion of Iraq and directly related matters, particularly coverage distorted in the US/UK interest. It is still very good at that and I find it extremely useful, but along the way it has picked up some fellow travellers with different destinations, from the quest for personal redemption to the touting of artwork. It is becoming a repository for material of a general lefty anti-imperialist nature.
 
Myself, I don't mind this, because it only takes a second to delete unwanted email, however irritating, and often the matrerial is of interest. But apparently some people do mind it and are voting with their recycle bins.
 
It might help if we had, not the called-for debate,  which could just encourage more waffle and highlight divisions, but a statement (from David) of the purpose of Mediawatch. People will then have guidance as to what to upload and those with other interests can pursue them elsewhere.
 
TimG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Alan Hinnrichs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 March 2005 10:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Wal-Mart Thrown Out Of New York

First it was Los Angeles, then it was Chicago. And now it's the borough of Queens in New York City.
The nation's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, has been forcibly thrown out of the nation's three largest cities due to its low wages, bad benefits and anti-worker policies.

The latest ejection came Feb. 23, when the Vornado Realty Trust decided to develop a large shopping complex in the borough --but without a 132,000-square-foot Wal-Mart as its centerpiece.

Wal-Mart denied it had a deal with Vornado, but it was con-tradicted by community leaders and the chair of the New York City Council's Land Use Committee, which must approve such deals.

"We welcome Vornado's decision that Wal-Mart will not be part of its development in Queens," said Stuart Appelbaum, President of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, part of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

UFCW is leading a nationwide drive to unionize Wal-Mart--and to publicize its low! wages, bad benefits, labor law-breaking and discrimination on the job.

"Any developer should hesitate to consider including Wal-Mart in any future plans. Wal-Mart's detrimental impact on communi-ties where they operate stores will continue to generate strong opposition wherever they attempt to open," Appelbaum added.

"Working families in New York simply cannot afford the high cost that comes with Wal-Mart's promise of low prices. Wal-Mart's low wages and benefits and their willingness to break labor laws not only hurt their own employees but put pressure on employers who play by the rules.

"We expect that this is not the last we've heard from Wal-Mart in this city and New Yorkers will be ready to protect our communities and stand up to this bully no matter how they try to sneak in next," Appelbaum warned. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the million-worker Arkansas-headquartered behemoth still seeks a site in New York City.

Last year, after publicity about ! its low-paying jobs, bad benefits and discrimination, voters in a lower-income majority-minority Los Angeles suburb voted against a zoning change that would have let Wal-Mart in.

Publicity about those same issues led the Chicago City Council to enact a "Big Box Living Wage Ordinance"--and Wal-Mart dropped plans for two supercenters in low-income areas there.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 09/03/2005