Whole Foods controls the media |
|
by Leah Koenig, August 15, 2007 |
|
"The Federal Trade Commission documents revealed that Whole Foods planned to close 30 or more Wild Oats stores, a move that the company believes would nearly double revenue for some Whole Foods stores...
Many of the details in the documents, which F.T.C. lawyers filed electronically, were not meant to be released publicly, but words intended to be inaccessible were actually just electronically shaded black. The words could be searched, copied, pasted and read in versions downloaded from court computer servers.
Court officials realized the mistake and replaced the filing with a version using scanned pages of the edited documents. The Associated Press downloaded the document from the public server before it was replaced by an edited version."
Whole Foods: friend or foe?According to the document, Whole Foods set rules barring food suppliers from direct sales with Wal-Mart. Additionally, documents labled "Project Goldmine" predicted that the buy-out will send 80-90 percent of Wild Oats shoppers to Whole Foods. Shoppers will then be at the mercy of Whole Foods who, without competition, can drive up prices even more than they already have.
This information leaves socially conscious shoppers in a bit of a conundrum – what do you do when a “good store” goes bad? Whole Foods was founded in 1980 in
Read Whole Foods' response to the situation here.
Harvey Weinstein Ill-Gotten Gains Award: Jerry Yang |
|
by Avi Kramer, July 18, 2007 |
|
Jerry Yang, a 5’ 3” 39-year-old native Laotian psychologist who uses his professional training in his card-playing arsenal, won the $8.25 million top prize today at the World Series of Poker.
Murdoch Owns Dow Jones? |
|
by Michael Weiss, July 6, 2007 |
|
That's the rumor, according to UK magazine The Business (not to be confused with The Bidness, a Rasta triphop zine out of Staines). Purchase price: $5 billion.
According to sources acting for Dow Jones in the negotiations, the deal was delayed until agreement was reached on a legally-binding undertaking by Murdoch to preserve the Wall Street Journal’s editorial independence.
Under the terms of this agreement, News Corporation will have the ability to hire and fire the top editors and publishers (a matter on which Murdoch would not budge); but a nominally independent five-person committee will have the right of veto on these decisions.
Full disclosure: I've written for both the NY Post and The Weekly Standard and I've been to the News Corp. Christmas party (the food in "Australia" last year was tops), so take whatever I say in the vein of corporate obeisance. What sort of difference, hypothetically speaking, would non-independence make on the Journal's editorial page?
Ben Smith at Politico puts it best: “[P]erhaps the China bureau shouldn't be the only ones worrying. What will become of the Clintons' long-time persecutors on the editorial board? Will their anti-Clinton posture go the way of the New York Post's?”
Of course, Dow Jones says it's all untrue, the only agreement that has been struck is the editorial independence one, begging the question of why such a deal is necessary if a sale is not imminent.