PressEthic

An article in the New York Times on Thursday talks about Wal-Mart's recent decrease in sales in November due to many of its overhaul strategies. To me, the article read more like an opinion piece.

Today, the retailer is expected to announce, based on its own estimates, that sales for November fell for the first time in a decade.

Upon reading it, there was simply something unsettling about the way it was written. Given the history of the Times' coverage of Wal-Mart, it is not surprising, and Michael Barbaro, the reporter, sounds like he is finally trying to settle a score with the company. The sheer fact that the Times chose to place the article on the front page is a huge indicator of bias towards the company. It seemed like the publication jumped on the opportunity to expose the company's failings to the world.

The wording also glaringly suggests this:

At first glance, the stumbles seem to resurrect the perennial question: is Wal-Mart too big for its own good, making it impossible to achieve the gravity-defying growth that Wall Street has counted on for four decades.

Isn't it more a matter of opinion whether or not this is "the perennial question"? It is obvious that this is the question that the media has been asking for years, but can one assume that the public has been asking the same question? Barbaro seems to be going down a path or crossing a line that he does not want to cross. I just can't picture Wal-Mart's seasoned customers asking themselves if Wal-Mart is "too big for its own good."

While the article definitely has newsworthy elements, it seems more like an opportunity for the Times to express its opinion that maybe the giant is finally getting what was coming to it.