Wal-Mart: Scoop or No Scoop?

An editor at the Albany Times Union has publicly taken me to task for claiming that Marc Gunther's story about Wal-Mart's planned sustainability index is a "scoop." Casey Seiler points me (and readers of Romenesko) to a front-page story that the Times Union ran back in April and seems to think that: a) there is substantial overlap between that story and Gunther's, and therefore b) my criticism of mainstream media for honoring Wal-Mart's (WMT) news embargo after the story was already out was unfair to the Times Union.

I think Seiler is way off-base (although I had not previously seen the Times Union story and am pleased to have read it because it's interesting). In my view, the stories are completely different. The Times Union story was about a program that's already in place with several large retailers; Gunther's scoop was about a program that is easily more than a year away from being implemented. The Times Union story was about a database intended to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals; Gunther's story was about the program Wal-Mart announced this week, which is much broader in scope, taking into consideration greenhouse gases, packaging, impact on communities, etc.

But where Seiler really seems to be misreading things is in the media discussion. I certainly didn't say that no one had ever written about Wal-Mart and environmental issues. I simply pointed out that several large media organizations held back reporting this week's announcement because they'd agreed to interview Wal-Mart officials and sit on the information until Wal-Mart made its statement. If that shoe fits the Times Union (which I doubt), then so be it. If not, why all the fuss?

Nonetheless, I may not see things the same way everyone else does. The links are above; readers can make up their own minds.