There’s been quite the dust up between the New York Times and Walmart over the last 48 hours or so. Riding the tide of open and fervent conversation surrounding America’s minimum wage, the Times posted a rather scathing review of Walmart — one of America’s largest minimum wage employers — and the company’s perceived disinterest in supporting an increase in the minimum wage.

Now, this is far from the first time that Walmart has come under attack in the arena of public opinion. But it is one of the first times where Walmart has essentially launched a counter attack worthy of note.

From a PR perspective, I genuinely question the wisdom in launching a shot over the Times’ bow. While I’ll never be an advocate of a company simply taking unwarranted criticism, it’s hardly been the case that the allegations made in the Times’ article are unwarranted, or that the Times is the only publication writing negative and/or damaging stories about the company.

In my view, this rebuff from Walmart’s PR team comes across as snarky and ill-advised. To give credit where credit is due, the response definitely drew more attention than a simple ‘letter to the editor,’ and it also did an excellent job of using the accepted visual medium and snarky, almost condescending, voice of the internet. But where it seems to go awry for me is that there isn’t much substance in the rebuke. It comes across as though it were written by a beleaguered English teacher who decided to take out all of their frustrations on the last-read paper after a marathon grading session. The feeling of being lectured to and chastised as opposed to spoken with and engaged.

Yes, Walmart is a huge employer, and yes, they hiring huge numbers of veterans, and yes, they believe they pay their fair share of taxes. But does that really respond to the issues that were raised in the original article?

As a company already under fire on multiple fronts, it seems that Walmart missed the chance to open a truly two-way dialogue on the topics presented in the Times’ article. Instead, it seems the overly snarky and non-apology apology approach came away leaving many with a newly or increasingly bitter taste in their mouth regarding the company’s approach to the minimum wage debate — and many in the PR and marketing industries scratching their heads in confusion.