Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DIVA TAKES A DIVE
New York Post ^ | 6/04/03 | LAUREN BARACK

Posted on 06/04/2003 2:11:45 AM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:14:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

June 4, 2003 -- Life without Martha Stewart is not a good thing.

While Martha Stewart Omnimedia's brand will hold up for the short term, its long-term future is less secure, said retail consultants and analysts.

"If she went to jail, then two years from now her retail venture would be in decline," said Fulton McDonald, President of International Business Development Corp, a venture company for retail and fashion industries. "But most consumers aren't that tuned into Wall Street. I think there's been a discounting affect already."


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: notagoodthing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 06/04/2003 2:11:45 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"Life without Martha Stewart is not a good thing."

Now there's some objective, level-headed, responsible reporting!!!

2 posted on 06/04/2003 2:49:54 AM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
FYI
3 posted on 06/04/2003 4:21:45 AM PDT by jellybean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I will believe this when I see it. So far, I think that Lou Dobb's 'in-jail' count of crooked ceo's and wall street guru's is at a count of 'zero'......
4 posted on 06/04/2003 4:32:50 AM PDT by eeriegeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I really think Martha has gotten screwed in this whole thing. Her offense seems one of the more minor ones, yet her punishment seems one of the more extreme (think of all she's lost).

On the other hand, since Martha seems to be skilled in all arts, I'd like to see her hunkering down with some "assault rifle" and explaining to someone why she chose that model, and that ammunition, giving tips on cleaning and maintaining the weapon ... and then coming out firing, shouting, "You'll never take me alive!"

5 posted on 06/04/2003 5:05:47 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I really think Martha has gotten screwed in this whole thing. Her offense seems one of the more minor ones, yet her punishment seems one of the more extreme (think of all she's lost).

Who has "punished" Martha (the poor thing) thus far, exactly?

6 posted on 06/04/2003 5:14:10 AM PDT by 70times7 (New York State of Confusion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
On the other hand, since Martha seems to be skilled in all arts, I'd like to see her hunkering down with some "assault rifle" and explaining to someone why she chose that model, and that ammunition, giving tips on cleaning and maintaining the weapon ...

"I chose the Heckler & Koch G3 because its furniture--the stock (pats stock) and handguards--is a nicely-textured black that complements the dove-gray window treatments in this room."

7 posted on 06/04/2003 5:15:05 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
Who has "punished" Martha (the poor thing) thus far, exactly?

Your point is well taken. My view (which may be half-baked) is that the Dixie Chicks were not punished by the government. Their First Amendment rights were not violated. But (for a while) people used the free market and stopped buying what the Dixie Chicks were selling. That doesn't bother me.

Martha has not been punished by the government. She has not yet felt any legal repercussions. But her reputation has been thoroughly trashed by Big Media. I think she has lost a great deal of money -- even while her stuff is still selling well. But the "smart money" is trying to avoid her because she's poisoned goods.

I'm sure that the Free Market acted on the Dixie Chicks. I fear that Big Media acted on Martha Stewart.

8 posted on 06/04/2003 5:32:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
She isn't getting screwed, she is getting what she deserves. Everyone else is getting off light, but it isn't over yet.
9 posted on 06/04/2003 5:39:08 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
I don't know if she is getting what she deserves, and neither do you. I do know she choose poorly, in a moment when she had a choice to take her stockbrokers advice, when he shouldn't have been giving it, and she shouldn't have been listening. There is not a single individual investing in the stock market, that does not know about insider trading, and the gains to be made over those who do not have such information. Many would say, you are a fool for not using such information to your advantage. Others would say "honesty is the best policy". If only everyone was honest.
10 posted on 06/04/2003 6:01:55 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wita
Well, so far she hasn't been punished by the government, so, I'd say she's doing okay so far! Took her stockbrokers advice? I thought that she knew the CEO and his family and that's how she found out. She is a shrewd business woman and I don't believe for one minute that she was taken advantage of.
11 posted on 06/04/2003 6:22:02 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Not to be off topic, but what the heck is the misuse of "diva"? Joan Sutherland, Marilyn Horne, Beverly Sills--those are/were divas. Martha is not. Neither, IMHO, is Natalie Maines.
12 posted on 06/04/2003 6:46:56 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
I don't believe for one minute that she was taken advantage of.

Agree completely.

13 posted on 06/05/2003 10:24:56 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wita
Point 1: Lying to the Feds doing an investigation - especially when you are a "celebrity", is dumb. Capital "D" Dumb. Its like putting on a big "kick me" sign on your rear.

Point 2: From what I have read, Ms. Stewart is quite the *itc* in real life. Just aske her ex, who helped her get her business off the ground, and whom she then tried to cut off from the future earnings of her enterprise.

Point 3: In the end , we all get what we have deserved. I suspect that this is what is finally happening to her.

Having said that, the gravity of her "crime" is not particularly high in my view. I could let her get off with probation (not likely however, in this climate.) Just ask Leona Helmsley (who, however, was not only a *itc*, but a STUPID and UGLY one. The fact that the jurors (male anyhow) will all be picturing the defendant in a different setting mentally may yet win her some leniency. At 61 she is still quite attractive.

14 posted on 06/05/2003 10:31:19 AM PDT by Al Simmons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"...and you'll find that this homemade soap-on-a-rope keeps the soap safely off the shower floor. As we all know, trying to pick up dropped soap is not a good thing. Coming up next, I'll be showing you how cheerful a 4' X 9' space can be..."
15 posted on 06/05/2003 10:36:12 AM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I see your point, but I think the issue is two sides of the same coin. The Ditzy Chicks opened their mouths (or NM to be specific) and felt the financial repercussions of those who disagreed with their actions/statements.

In Martha's case it isn't all that different. She has taken actions and said things that have tarnished her image in the minds of many, and the snowballing economic whammy was a natural extension. While one could argue that her problem was media driven it could also be stated that we wouldn't know what the Ditzy's said without the media. Guilty or innocent, I believe Martha's problems could have been reduced if she had handled it differently.

In both cases they bit the hands that fed them. For the DC's it was obvious. In Martha's case she cheezed off the K-Mart shoppers by pointedly demonstrating she is part of the privileged elite, and then blaming the highly vaunted "right wing conspiracy" when she was taken to task for exercising her (illegal) privilege. They both make their money based, in part, on the publics perception of them. When one has done things to destroy that perception who does one blame?

Lastly, the Ditzys are only guilty of stupidity. What she is accused of doing is illegal; criminal prosecution and punishment are entirely separate issues from the public fallout. Martha made this bed, ruffles and all, and she can lie in it (pun intended).

16 posted on 06/09/2003 11:46:40 AM PDT by 70times7 (I'm in a New York State of mindless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
Well, it will play itself out, and the conclusion (whatever it may be) can be studied when the dust clears. I will say this:

At no time did the Dixie Chicks face the wrath of the government. The media may have tried to inflame passions against the Chicks, but the only thing the Dixie Chicks really had to fear was that the great mass of the public would decide to spend their money elsewhere.

Martha, on the other hand, faces prosecution by the government. She is her empire, and she could be put in jail. As a financial entity, her empire is therefore in direct danger because the power of the US government can cause a real deal of pain, if it so chooses.

Does Martha deserve such punishment? Well, my understanding is that her Financial Advisor advised her to sell Imclone, so she did. Most people would. Now, her advisor gave her advice that he should not have given her. But that's really more his problem than it is hers.

As I say, I'll watch it all play out. But please keep in mind that her financial empire has taken a hit that is probably in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars. And a judge may decide that she broke no laws.

The media can destroy. The government can destroy. Heaven help you if they both team up to do the job. Your innocence will not save you.

17 posted on 06/09/2003 12:20:09 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
She's not being charged with insider trading. She's being charged with lying and obstruction, among other things.
18 posted on 06/09/2003 12:21:56 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Has she lied under oath? She may have -- I haven't followed it that closely.

The WSJ said the other day that it is very foolish to lie to a traffic cop about speeding -- especially when you weren't speeding. The position of the WSJ was that Martha did not break any laws, but she did lie about what she did.

I agree that Martha was foolish if she did that. In general, I just have sympathy for her. I think it became quite trendy to attack her. Her foibles seem slight to me.

19 posted on 06/09/2003 12:27:33 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Apparently when you are questioned by Feds you are warned verbaly and with a bunch of papers that you signed, that if you lie to the Feds (and they can prove it, of course) you are subject to charges. Her lawyers were with her when she was questioned. Everyone knew the drill. If she lied, she committed a crime.
20 posted on 06/09/2003 12:29:55 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson