Apparently the NYT really likes shoplifters and really hates Wal-Mart. At least, that’s the only reason I can think of to print this story:
But now, in a rare display of limited permissiveness, Wal-Mart is
letting thieves off the hook — at least in cases involving $25 or less.
According to internal documents, the company, the nation’s
largest retailer and leading destination for shoplifting, will no
longer prosecute first-time thieves unless they are between 18 and 65
and steal merchandise worth at least $25, putting the chain in line
with the policies of many other retailers.
The NYT says it got word of this new policy from a stack of internal documents sent to them by an activist group that thinks Wal-Mart should be unionized. I suppose we should be grateful that they deigned to tell us one of their sources, but when that source is clearly hostile to Wal-Mart’s management one has to wonder about their motivation for providing the information to the newspaper. And about the Times’ motivations for running the story.
As it happens, I tend to agree with the critics of this new policy
quoted in the article. But what possible relevance does an internal policy change at one retail chain have to the general public? Why
is it newsworthy? If someone sends them information about how to best exploit Target’s shoplifting policy, will they print that, too? Sears? Best Buy?
Tell me, where’s the best news-stand to steal a copy of the New York Times?