One Sure Sign

That a group knows it is peddling falsehoods is when they try to silence the voice of the group they are attacking. This is nowhere more evident at the moment than in the campaign against Wal-Mart. The union-funded front group that is coordinating the attack wants to try to shut down Wal-Mart from defending itself against scurrilous attacks by that group. So they have tried to get the authorities in two states to cut Wal-Mart's ability to reach people through advertising.

It turns out that organized labor's battle against Wal-Mart is more than a war on the lower-income Americans who depend on the big-box store's "always low prices." The unions are also after the First Amendment. Wal-Mart Watch, an opposition group supported by unions, has sent letters to the attorneys general of Arizona and Nebraska asking them to outlaw television spots Wal-Mart is running in those states. Wal-Mart Watch claims the states can do this thanks to consumer-protection laws that require truth in advertising.

Those laws are targeted at companies' claims about the weight of a Quarter Pounder or the ingredients of a bar of soap, however, and what's at issue in respect of the Wal-Mart ads is something else. Wal-Mart is attempting to counter the attacks of its critics by presenting its case directly to the public. Wal-Mart Watch complains that the TV spots say "Wal-Mart saves the average working family $2300 per year." Wal-Mart Watch claims this is deceptive because that number comes from a Wal-Mart funded study performed by a firm called Global Insight. "This ‘fact' has been discredited," Wal-Mart Watch writes to the attorneys general, "by a leading economic research think tank, the Economic Policy Institute."

It can easily be argued, however, that EPI isn't "objective" either. Nine of its 19 board members, after all, are leaders of labor unions. One of those just happens to be Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has been a supporter of anti-Wal-Mart efforts. Mr. Stern also serves on another board — that of Wal-Mart Watch, which he chairs. The unions and EPI certainly are entitled to their own analysis of Wal-Mart's economic impacts, but with their latest move they are trying to enlist state attorneys general to substitute the unions' views for, well, public debate.

Gee, no conflict of interest there. The group doing the "discrediting" and the group trying to silence their opposition have the same board members. Like I said – a sure sign.

This entry was posted in Observations. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to One Sure Sign

  1. Roland Hesz says:

    “That a group knows it is peddling falsehoods is when they try to silence the voice of the group they are attacking.”

    Uhm..
    You are right. They must know it.

    And then Rumsfeld and Bush knows they are peddling falsehoods concerning Iraq, for example?

  2. Gaius says:

    Roland, the administration has taken what critic to court and tried to restrain them?

    Don’t tell me you believe the “we’re being suppressed” nonsense that people go on TV to talk about.

  3. Roland Hesz says:

    Nope, they just complained and put everything under “top secret, don’t look, it is confidential” and “it’s public but none of your business” signs.

    I don’t believe that you are suppressed.

    I just hear Rumsfeld complaining about people criticising them, and how “they should not be allowed to contradict the administration”.
    That he is “kept awake at night” by people telling things he does not want them to tell.

  4. Roland Hesz says:

    And when the president and the big guys of the government complain about you talking, that constitutes as “try to silence”.

  5. Pingback: The Baltimore Reporter

Comments are closed.