Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Should Walmart Cover Up Magazines?`

Media Magazines Walmart

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 02:42 PM

I was watching the news today when they state that Walmart will be covering up a few women's magazines that are in their checkout lines because some customers find the material on the cover objectional (Walmart previously pulled 3 mens magazines permanently, no covers at all, because of similar "objections")

One reporter went on a rant (his segment is usually like this).  He blasted Walmart for conceding to the demands of some Missippi or so Family Organization that was being vocal about the material.  Then, he made another comment:  If these magazines are considered so objectional, then why doesn't Walmart put away all those weapons displays it has up?

I think its a valid question.  This is ONE family organization.  How many years have these magazines been up?  Now, all of a sudden, Walmart, which accounts for 15 of 100 magazines sold for each title, wimpers and covers up "objectional content"   This objectional content happens to be Drew Barrymore, almost fully clothed.

Personally, I'd say magazines are less harmful then the rifle that are sold (duh!), and I dont think the current mentality of children is going to go towards rape or such thigns when it comes to these magazines and the content (but my point on what IS dangerous these days will be in a post tomorrow or the next day...I had an interesting experience tonight).  

Will Walmart concede to every demand made?  What about Kmart and Target?

Some people go too far.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 02:48 PM

I think Wal Mart has made a poor business decision.

That being said, it is their decision to make; businesses sometimes do weird, random things.

I do think it's inexpliciable that a magazine raises more eyebrows than a potentially lethal weapon.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 04:22 PM

Like Rov is a odd position to take but they have made it now to see how long it lasts.

As to the weapon the rifles they sell are .22 cal rifles a far and distant cry from .460 Marlin Rifle they used offer in the 80's. Also they follow both federal and state requirments to beable to sell them.

.22 rifles are a long way from hunting rifles unless you are hunting squirrels and birds. The shotguns and all pump action there are no semi automatic rifles one could get at other stores.

So really the weapsons issue is tame.

The magizines let them be seen as listeningto their costumers ,and that can play well in some quarters.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 11:45 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 6 2003, 11:52 PM, said:

I think Wal Mart has made a poor business decision.

That being said, it is their decision to make; businesses sometimes do weird, random things.

I do think it's inexpliciable that a magazine raises more eyebrows than a potentially lethal weapon.
A number of Kroger's and Big Bear stores in my area already cover up the pictures for magazines like Cosmo, and they haven't lost that much money because of it, from what I can see. :blink:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#5 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 03:55 AM

DWF, on Jun 7 2003, 05:49 AM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 6 2003, 11:52 PM, said:

I think Wal Mart has made a poor business decision.

That being said, it is their decision to make; businesses sometimes do weird, random things.

I do think it's inexpliciable that a magazine raises more eyebrows than a potentially lethal weapon.
A number of Kroger's and Big Bear stores in my area already cover up the pictures for magazines like Cosmo, and they haven't lost that much money because of it, from what I can see. :blink:
Same here at all the grocery stores. I'm surprised it has taken WM this long to do this.

#6 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 04:05 AM

^

I haven't noticed anyone covering up covers.  Then again it's not the kind of thing I usually pay attention to.

:blink:
Posted Image

#7 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 05:15 AM

^You mean you don't have those weird tan plastic/metal things on the magazine racks near the check out counter? The ones that you flip forward and still get to see what's behind them. The ones that often cover up mags based on their name, and leave others -- with eye popping pics on them - uncovered? You don't have all this censorship in your area? Gee golly, you are deprived.  :lol:

Personally, they should just put all the magazines in the magazine dept., and let the parents worry about what their kids see. Or wait - we could go back to the days when all the "adult" mags were only sold at the local liquor store. That would just stop so much trashy stuff from being seen by kids and prudes. There is so much to be offended by anymore.  *sigh*

#8 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 06:01 AM

kimmer, on Jun 7 2003, 11:19 AM, said:

^You mean you don't have those weird tan plastic/metal things on the magazine racks near the check out counter? The ones that you flip forward and still get to see what's behind them. The ones that often cover up mags based on their name, and leave others -- with eye popping pics on them - uncovered? You don't have all this censorship in your area? Gee golly, you are deprived.  :lol:
Nope!

Never seen anything like that.   :wacko:
Posted Image

#9 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 06:11 AM

Hey, how come Wal-mart's policy doesn't extend to cleaning up DVDs?

Buffy Season Four is coming out soon, imagine how they'd chop up the Willow/Tara scenes.

All that violence in the Matrix, surely that could be made nicer.

And cover up all magazines that don't feature pictures of Sam Walton. ;)

-Ogami

#10 Julie

Julie
  • Islander
  • 777 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 06:16 AM

kimmer, on Jun 7 2003, 02:19 PM, said:

That would just stop so much trashy stuff from being seen by kids and prudes. There is so much to be offended by anymore.  *sigh*
In defense of those who wanted these magazines covered up, some magazine covers can be pretty revealing.

#11 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 07:01 AM

Julie, on Jun 7 2003, 12:20 PM, said:

kimmer, on Jun 7 2003, 02:19 PM, said:

That would just stop so much trashy stuff from being seen by kids and prudes. There is so much to be offended by anymore.  *sigh*
In defense of those who wanted these magazines covered up, some magazine covers can be pretty revealing.
I agree with you Julie, and I'm not above turning them all backwards in the rack ...  :lol: ... but it all gets somewhat silly after a bit. This offends person A, so we cover it up. That offends person B, so we cover it up. But store XYZ has a different approach and they don't cover up anything, so all the kids hang out there.

Honestly .. the best thing is for folks to contact the magazines and nicely tell them how offensive they find the covers. You also organize and tell all your friends and get them to write. Plus you take the added step of not buying this stuff. Eventually it either ceases to exist or they change their ways.

#12 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 02:52 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 7 2003, 03:52 AM, said:

I think Wal Mart has made a poor business decision.

That being said, it is their decision to make; businesses sometimes do weird, random things.

I do think it's inexpliciable that a magazine raises more eyebrows than a potentially lethal weapon.
Shrug.  I think Wal-Mart made a good business decision. They know their customers, they know their demographic.  It's their right.

There was a time in our history when you could walk into a store and see Playboy and Penthouse covers. People objected to the salacious nature of the pictures and didn't want children exposed to them. (Because, you know, adolescents would never think about sex otherwise.)

I challenge someone here :) to find a copy of a Playboy cover from that era and compare it to the covers of "women's magazines" today. You'd be surprised by the salacious similarities. When I check out in a grocery store today, I'm confronted by an endless display of cleavage, nipples, perfectly rounded butts, and sexy, inviting smiles.

(The thing I object to most is the lack of equal opportunity. Let's have a few underdressed, suggestively posed men on those covers!)

And, for the record, I'll say that today's "women's magazines" go farther than Playboy ever did in "objectifying women." There's not a cover out there where the scantily clad female's photo hasn't been retouched and airbrushed and reconstructed to create a near-anorexic "ideal" figure. They remove "excess fat" from arms and sides and legs until the photo matches an impossible "ideal" more than it does the woman's actual body.  

If Wal-Mart's customers don't want to be faced by acres of naked female flesh when they're picking up a magazine, then it's their right to say so. And it's Wal-Mart's right to cease displaying those covers.

Edited by AnneZo, 09 June 2003 - 02:54 AM.


#13 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 02:54 AM

Ogami, on Jun 7 2003, 07:15 PM, said:

Hey, how come Wal-mart's policy doesn't extend to cleaning up DVDs?

Buffy Season Four is coming out soon, imagine how they'd chop up the Willow/Tara scenes.

All that violence in the Matrix, surely that could be made nicer.

And cover up all magazines that don't feature pictures of Sam Walton. ;)

-Ogami
FWIW, you do know, don't you, that organizations like "Blockbuster" routinely demand copies of movies and shows where "objectionable" bits have been edited out or bad language has been bleeped, right?

#14 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 04:40 AM

AnneZo, on Jun 8 2003, 08:56 AM, said:

(The thing I object to most is the lack of equal opportunity. Let's have a few underdressed, suggestively posed men on those covers!)
As a completely random aside...

We all know why magazines like Maxim, Stuff, FHM, etc have females on the cover; they're trying to reach their target audience: 18-25 year old men who are attracted to the female form.

Why then, do magazines like Cosmopolitan, Woman's Day, Redbook, etc also have females on the cover? They're most definately not trying to reach the same target audience. In fact, it would make more sense to me if they were equal opportunity...

</random aside>

Now then...

As far as the rifles/periodicals thing goes...

Quote

Rov: I do think it's inexpliciable that a magazine raises more eyebrows than a potentially lethal weapon.

Like hammers, ball point pens, rat poison, insecticide, etc... ;)

Consider where this is coming from. Mississippi. Consider where Wal-Mart is based. Arkansas. They see rifles as tools, not "potentially deadly weapons".

Anyway... As far as the covers themselves, that's their right. I am a little curious as to why they were so quick to stop selling the men's magazines completely and they're willing to compromise with these women's magazines, but...
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#15 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 09:24 AM

Quote

The thing I object to most is the lack of equal opportunity. Let's have a few underdressed, suggestively posed men on those covers!)

Well.....Men's Health and those muscle ones... :p
But they aren't SOO much suggestively posed.

And maybe Playgirl, but I wouldn' tknow considering I don't subscribe....lol


But you ahve a point.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#16 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 01:26 PM

Annezo asked:

FWIW, you do know, don't you, that organizations like "Blockbuster" routinely demand copies of movies and shows where "objectionable" bits have been edited out or bad language has been bleeped, right?

I had momentarily forgotten that. But then I rent at local video stores, Blockbuster is a ripoff.

-Ogami

#17 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 06:01 PM

jon3831, on Jun 8 2003, 12:44 PM, said:

We all know why magazines like Maxim, Stuff, FHM, etc have females on the cover; they're trying to reach their target audience: 18-25 year old men who are attracted to the female form.

Why then, do magazines like Cosmopolitan, Woman's Day, Redbook, etc also have females on the cover? They're most definately not trying to reach the same target audience. In fact, it would make more sense to me if they were equal opportunity...
Well, those magazines are usually chock full of articles and tips on how to make yourself supposedly look like those women on the covers.

Just one more way the media helps contribute to the self image issues of many women.
Bossy

Kryptonite, silver bullet, Buffy? Dammit, what does it take to keep you in the grave? - John to Scorpy

And what the hell is Succubitch doing here? - Lorne

Captain, your presence here has not been overly meddlesome. - Ambassador Soval

.... it'll only induce me to acts of eloquence and mayhem. - Hawk

#18 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 10:38 PM

jon3831, on Jun 8 2003, 11:44 AM, said:

I am a little curious as to why they were so quick to stop selling the men's magazines completely and they're willing to compromise with these women's magazines
Objectification of women by men is a victimization that speaks badly of the men who do it. Objectification of women by women is perfectly normal. After all, it is women, not men, who invented the things like the fatless image and the "need" for pounds of makeup to decorate themselves and each other FOR themselves and each other regardless how silly men find such things. Also, women's magazines vs men's magazines is like black magazines vs white magazines; the former in each case is fine, the latter in each case is politically incorrect (or most magazines are claimed to fit in those categories anyway, necessitating the creation of the former magazines to separate from them).

#19 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 10 June 2003 - 12:36 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 7 2003, 10:09 AM, said:

^

I haven't noticed anyone covering up covers.  Then again it's not the kind of thing I usually pay attention to.

:blink:
<snicker> Neither have I. I guess neither of us has our minds on scantily clad women when we're looking at magazines.  :p  :p

Edited by Rhea, 10 June 2003 - 01:05 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#20 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 10 June 2003 - 03:38 AM

AnneZo, on Jun 8 2003, 08:58 AM, said:

FWIW, you do know, don't you, that organizations like "Blockbuster" routinely demand copies of movies and shows where "objectionable" bits have been edited out or bad language has been bleeped, right?
Say what? Can you point me to an article or something on this, please.

I'd also like to know what has been deleted and is considered "objectionable"? We rent from BB on a reg. basis and I'd say there's plenty of "objectionable" stuff in some of the movies we rent.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Magazines, Walmart

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users