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 ...
Now there's some objective, level-headed, responsible reporting!!!
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!"
Who has "punished" Martha (the poor thing) thus far, exactly?
"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."
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.
Agree completely.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.