Make no mistake about it, American based Wal-Mart is the worlds largest retailer. With nearly 4000 stores and operations in several foreign nations, the mighty retail chain is also the largest private employer in the world and the fourth largest utility or commercial employer, trailing the People’s Liberation Army of China. Imagine that? The entire military might of a robust nation such as China, dwarfed by a legion of blue smocks and peppy promotional buttons.
Wal-Mart is the bees knees of Western retail and all those moving parts in between. With such a firm market presence Wal-Mart certainly has North American consumers by the throat. For one reason or another, we all love that plucky smiley faced bastard and the chiseled prices he promotes. 
The chain’s might in the marketplace has also afforded itself a reputation for almost legendary audacity when dealing with the suppliers that stock their shelves. Of course, why wouldn’t they? From a business perspective the numbers don’t lie, if you get your product on the shelves of Wal-Mart you’re going to sell a ton of it. This purchasing ability can and does make or break companies. These are the types of games that brown the undergarments of CEOs when they find out Beijing Coffee Co. in China just undercut your bid by fifteen cents per kilo and you’ve lost your enormous contract with the price conscious retailer. 
This happens all the time and the latest victim happens to be the publishing industry as Wal-Mart announced they will remove nearly 1000 publication titles from its newsstands. Although I’m sure we won’t exactly miss titles like Boar Hunter Magazine, however, when one company is responsible for nearly 20 percent of all US retail magazine sales, it poses the question of censorship and manipulation to its consumers.
Certainly there is no concrete evidence to substantiate any claim of censorship, but given the right conditions this sort of buying power combined with a slanted perspective could be catastrophic in delivering a balanced media palate to the American public. 
For instance, let’s say the CEO of Wal-Mart is a huge supporter of one political party and their ideologies. Perhaps a few elected officials have pulled some strings for the company and therefore likes having this party in power in hopes of satisfying their own agenda. Does this mean that the only newspapers and magazines allowed on shelves are those that are party friendly? With choice completely removed, your world is now one perspective and the constant battering of media that occurs on a daily basis has been synchronized to support one idea. A choice you wouldn’t even have known you lost otherwise.
I’m not saying this will ever happen, but being consciously aware of these situations and their seemingly harmless activity can reveal a more sinister side of the corporate empire. This happens all the time with Wal-mart and I doubt anyone really gets bent out of shape when a certain brand of coffee gets dropped, but when it comes to the hearts and minds of people already manipulated enough by rags bent on winning those hearts and minds, that’s where I see an issue.