@icyfroth wrote:
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
Question: Were Coles and Woolworths exercising their right to decide what products they would or wouldn’t sell?
Yes. they exercised the right to choose the products they stock.
The ones losing their rights are the public, who are no longer able to execise their right to purchase this magazine from their local supermarket.
It was never available before as this was a trial which obviously didn't work out.
The local supermarkets stock a very small range of magazines compared to newsagents and the ones
they stock need to sell on a regular basis and as they are limited on the space they have on their shelves.
They have a variety of reasons why a magazine may be removed and possible controversy is one that will get
a magazine removed quickly which would be in their protocol policies.
The point here is, some are exercising their right of speech to deny others their right to freedom of choice and expression.
Freedom of choice hasn't been affected as they can still choose to buy it elsewhere and choice of expression
is still there as the magazine is still for sale just not in those supermarkets.
It's called "supression".
Others may call it "herding the sheep"
Suppression and herding the sheep would involve removing ALL copies and as other places do sell that
magazine this can't be classed as that.
it's not as if it's been banned.
Exactly. It hasn't been banned. Obviously because it's contents are not harmful. So why would Ben Fordham feel he has the right to shame Coles and Woolies into taking it off their shelves? Flexing his journalistic muscle?
They would've had a look at the current issue and decided as it wasn't similar but more controversial
compared to the one they were shown so decided to pull it themselves.
as far as Coles and Woolies go. it was a new magazine they were trialing, not a great seller for them by the sounds of it.. so they made a decision not to stock it. assissted by comments from a radio shock jock
Another example of the media controlling public opinion.
No,he only made them aware that it wasn't what they thought it was based on an previous issue they were
shown
I used to buy a dollhouse miniatures magazine that was never stocked by Coles and Woolies... but I never saw that as "suppression" I just purchased it elsewhere.
Sure, one can buy "What The Doctors Don't Tell You" elsewhere, I imagine Newsagents would stock it. Or you could go online.
But media pressure has ensured it's no longer "mainstream".
Supermarkets sell very few magazines which they generally get direct from the suppliers compared to
newsagents and newsagents distribute them to petrol stations,take away places,etc around the towns so
they go more "mainstream" via a newsagent as the supermarkets don't supply others and may have only
had minimal copies of that magazine as a trial.
As with any trial it's then up to them if they will sell or continue to sell that magazine.
@4channel wrote:
Well, were Coles shown another issue or some kind of expanded version that normally is not on the shelves? Who showed it to them? As they stock the issue themselves, they'd only have to send one of their staff to a branch to pick up a copy or get it couriered to their HO.
They would've been shown an earlier copy of the same magazine that they didn't stock with different stories
that were acceptable to them so choose to get the magazine based on that but this issue didn't match the
type of stories in that magazine and were not acceptable to them.
It's how a number of magazines try to get on the shelves of outlets by showing them a copy that seems fine
to the stockist but then is later found to be more off putting so they remove it from their shelves.
Newsagents do it all the time where they will get a new magazine and add it to the orders of people they
supply and it's then up to those stockists to decide whether they want to keep stocking that magazine.
