Remember the old saying, How hard the mighty have fallen? It seems appropriate in relation to Martha Stewart.
I have been halfheartedly following this story for months now. Not overly intersted for a long time, then becomeing very curious with all the hype. We, the people seem to love it when someone rich and famous falls or stumbles.
Perhaps in this case people seem to relish the idea that the epitomy of household bliss has tripped and bloodied her nose. Its hard when the rest of us slug our butts out every day trying to eek out a living and build lives - while someone who was just like us, builds a billion dollar company doing what we hate to do - and does a damn fine job of it.
Yes, if Martha broke the law she needs to take her lumps. Doesn't it say somewhere that the punishment needs to fit the crime?
I am confused though, and wondering why all the hype. I understand that insider trading is illegal. I understand that this crime is taken very seriously. What I don't understand is why there again seems to be a different response for different people.
Factiva lists 29,916 references to Martha Stewart in the past two years. Kenneth Lay, the former CEO of Enron, gets 21,057 references. Dennis Kozlowski, the former Tyco CEO who lifted a tidy $600-million from his company, is mentioned 9,317 times. And Mr. Waksal, the man at the heart of the ImClone scandal, is cited a mere 6,745 times. (Factiva.com, the Dow Jones/Reuters database of more than 8,000 news outlets in 118 countries). MICHAEL DEN TANDT
I do think that Martha Stewart is an easy target. We wrap ourselves in indignation, pointing a finger and clucking that she lied so she needs to be punished. If she is guilty, then she takes her lumps, but should we be dishing it out to her with such relish? Lies seem to roll off the lips of many people these days. Nation leaders lie with ease, over and over and when caught, they say Oops Sorry. I think we really need to get some perspective on this issue and remember that she is innocent until proven guilty; then the punishment should fit the crime, and should reflect the norm in society. What was that baseline norm again?
The difference between Stewart, Lay, Kozlowski and Waksal is that Stewart was more of a public figure to more people. We ALL know Martha Stewart. She is on our televisions three times a day. She is in our book stores and she is on EVERY magazine rack in every magazine store in the country. There is so much hype and so much news about her because she is such a public figure. It's not like Kozlowski had a television show that we all knew of or that Lay puts out more magazines than almost anyone in the world. As a regular non-business person in this world...I had NO idea who those other people were until they got in trouble...and even then I wouldn't remember their names. The 'icing on the cake' if you will...is not only her being a public figure...but a 'public figure of perfection' who shows us the best ways to live our social lives. I think THATS why she gets so much hype. Not to mention she's a royal bitch to work for. I know two people who have worked for her and I hear that the rumors are true...she's absolutely impossible and demanding. My two cents. :)
Posted by: anniebella at June 27, 2003 06:26 PM