MARTHA'S BOARDROOM MAKEOVER: "Monica principle" applied to business journalism.

Washington Post (excerpt) Page C01 ^ | 7/1/02 | Howard Kurtz

[Liz]

From the moment Time began a story with "What did Martha Stewart know? And when did she know it?" it was clear that the stock of tycoons was plummeting on the media exchange.

Puffy profiles were suddenly as outmoded as Enron options.

It's open season on chief executives these days as journalists rip into business leaders for fraud, book-cooking, chicanery and plain old greed. "These CEOs are the new America's Most Wanted," says columnist Christopher Byron, author of "Martha Inc."

[Liz]

EXCERPT As stocks soared between 1982 and 2000, and particularly during the dot-com boom, media outlets heaped praise on the likes of Jack Welch, Bill Gates, Steve Case, Gerald Levin, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, Meg Whitman and Jeff Bezos, Time's 1999 Man of the Year.

Can't wait for the sequel, entitled, " Where Are They Now: In the Unemployment Line With America's CEO's"

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Kinda doubt we'll see too many execs filing for unemployment.

[ClearCase_guy]

"It's the Monica Lewinsky principle applied to business journalism."

I confess that I did not bother to read the article. But what (to the casual reader) is the Monica Principle? Has Martha Stewart succeeded in business because she knows how to show appreciation to powerful men? Do business journalists get hot stories by paying for them in unorthodox ways?

Or is this a way of saying that innocent women, who do nothing wrong at all are hounded by mean men with an agenda?

I suspect that it's supposed to be this last, but that seems grossly inaccurate for both Monica and Martha.

[Liz]

But what (to the casual reader) is the Monica Principle?

Refers to pack journalism.

[Liz]

................ping.......... ......

[Grampa Dave]

Oh yes, the Monica Principal syndrome.

Nah! Lets not get side tracked. What we have are dishonest Rats who from 1993 to Jan 2001 had no Controlling Legal authority if they donated to the Rats, to the Clintoons and publicly supported Bubba during the Moniker Licking Fiasco.

Now, their arrogance when there is a Controlling Legal authority is proving to be their downfall.

[avenir]

A while back Martha was interviewed by WIRED magazine:

The question of the season: Microsoft monopoly - thumbs up or thumbs down?

Listen - if anybody who wants to be an explorer or a pioneer has to go through what Microsoft is going through, I feel really bad about it. Man wouldn't have gotten to the Moon, or invented the telephone, if there had been a check at every step of the way. I don't believe in this action at all.

She may actually be guilty. But it seems that even if she isn't, there is a desire to attack her success as somehow pathological. She's greedy, cheap, etc...rather than "Gee, look how many people she employs!"

[Angelique]

They are having dinner with Martha. The main course is CROW

[Liz]

.....having dinner with Martha. The main course is CROW....

......braised in a Burgundy demi-glace, served with a dose of recrimination.......

[Liz]

Lets not get side tracked. What we have are dishonest Rats who from 1993 to Jan 2001 had no Controlling Legal authority if they donated to the Rats, to the Clintoons and publicly supported Bubba during the Moniker Licking Fiasco. Now, their arrogance when there is a Controlling Legal authority is proving to be their downfall.

.......makes me wanna laugh so hard.........

[Angelique]

And a glass of cider vinegar for those perfect parched lips...

[Liz]

And a glass of cider vinegar for those perfect parched lips.......

LOL.......oo-oo-oo-oo-oo that's sour......

[Angelique]

Coming tomorrow.......Martha gives a recipe for chapped lips. Problem: her tongue is tied in talking to the feds.

[Liz]

Cure for Martha's chapped lips........

Just stop biting them whenever they ask you about ImClone stock.

[Angelique]

How silly that we believed Martha's recipe for stock. That soup is stone cold.