Ok people, here's the first of many that I've gotten. I hope you enjoy. Keep sending them in to atthecornerbar@yahoo.com.
I've always wanted to know why Martha Stewart was
treated so well by the media, but Ken Lay, CEO of
Enron, was practically skewered. Is that a
double-standard or what? They're both crooks. They
should both be punished.
So why does Martha get a slap on the wrist? She
defrauded people, too.
I'll tell you what I think it is: Martha is part of
the popular clique. She's famous. She gives money to
Democrats. Therefore the media loves her.
Ken Lay? Oh no. He ran a big evil corporation. He's
associated with *gasp* Republicans. He must be the
devil. And he got dragged over the coals.
It's a double-standard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't think Martha Stewart has ever been treated well by the media. She has been a constant punchline, spoof and parody prior to her sentence and perhaps even more so now that she's been to prison. Lay's trial isn't until 2006. Bottom line, greed didn't work for either of them.
Yes, she's always been the butt of jokes. But regardless, she was treated with soft gloves when she got out of prison. She gets fawned over by the perpetually-concerned-looking Diane Sawyer. She's on a pedestal. She doesn't face the hard questions. She doesn't get villified like Ken Lay. That was my point.
All I have to say is..."You're the best around. Nothing's gonna ever gonna keep you down."
Wow...
Ken Lay allegdly defrauded thousands of Enron employees out of their entire livelihoods leaving them unemployed, destitute and with totally valueless retirement funds. Middle aged Enron employees have had to essentially start over as if they just graduated from college. Many lost their homes becuase they could not recover from the losses. Enron's actions also cost outside investors millions of dollars.
Martha Stewart acted on an insider tip and saved $50,000 by selling stock before it dipped in value.
The problem is that the media has grouped these two actions together as if they are even remotely related, when in fact that they could not be further from one another in terms of severity.
If Martha were not famous she probably would have received a fine and not have been put in prison at all. (That is if her crime had even been investigated.) However, if Ken Lay were not politically connected he would already be serving a lengthy federal prison sentence instead of being given the opportunity to defend himself to a national audience on 60 minutes.
Enron's actions, along with those of Worldcom have ushered in the most significant and sweeping reforms of federal oversight over corporate governance that has ever been implemented. These reforms are so stringent and significant that CEO's and CFO's face severe criminal liability for financial reporting inaccuracies even if they did not know that certain violations within their companies took place. Corporate Counsel are also subject to criminal liabilities for actions taken by company executives under certain circumstances.
The reforms are so broad, and heavily scrutinized by the federal government that I can only imagine that there are many long dead Republicans still restlessly flipping about in their graves, simply wishing that they could return to Earth and kick the shit out the party's current leaders.
The media's treatment of these two separate and distinct issues, as always, has confused the serious issues and questions that they present. But I believe that they have been skewed in directions opposite from those you have suggested.
Martha Stewart's actions, while criminal, are as about as newsworthy as Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston's breakup. The legacy of Enron and Worldcom, however, will be felt by the entire country for years to come, costing publically traded companies literally billions of dollars, thereby costing investors and consumers billions of dollars in the long run.
(of course these may or may not be my own opinions, and in no way whatsoever represent the opinion of anyone who may or may not employee me.)
Holy shit. Who would have thought that someone else's blog would have put some energy into this empty "bar." And to think, I'm sure after Dave read's the post and Jeff responds...oh hell have no fury like a woman scorned for Sega.
Sorry Dan. I don't really have a comment. I am more interested in how fruit is being used to administer varying degrees of insult.
What a load of ass.
Good on you, Tigger, whoever you are... The only people that would enjoy comparing Lay's criminal activities to those of Stewart's are the same people that get off on the whole partisan bullshit of "Republican" versus "Democrat." Political junkies (like me on bad days) are even getting bored with this shit. The differences between our political leaders (from either party) are slight at best.
The only truth is this: We have an idiot camped out in the White House. I don't give a God damn if he were a Republican or Democrat. If a man does not know how to speak with at least a tidbit of eloquence, he has no business representing a country.
So please, save the whole "media loves Democrats, I love Fox News" swill for another day.
Dan,
You should write the movie about the undead Republicans coming back to take over Washington. I would love to see the risen Eisenhower and Reagan dispense some serious ass whippings.
My whole point was that they are both crooks, yet Martha Stewart was treated with care and concern. The media didn't villify her at all as they did with Ken Lay.
I'm not defending Ken Lay. What he did was wrong, and he will be punished for it.
But I'm not going to make doom and gloom speculations about what "probably would" happen. And I'm not going to let my imagination run wild about what dead Republicans think about new reforms.
Note to Tigger: you said, "Martha Stewart's actions, while criminal, are as about as newsworthy as Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston's breakup." While that point has nothing to do with my original post, and I didn't see anything unusual about the amount of coverage, my point was that after Martha was released from prison these media personalities were treating her like a queen. To me she's just another famous person who thought she could get away with a crime.
Note to Nathaniel: Did you read what I wrote? I didn't compare their crimes. I compared their treatment by the media. And from the other things you wrote, it sounds as if you believe everything they say. You spew the standard anti-Bush hatred and arrogance that they feed you.
Dan, look what you started!!!!I find this all very hilarious!!! I am trying to figure out why people sit around worrying about Martha Stewart and Ken Lay are punished or treated by the media. However, I would have to agree with tigger. Let's get to a real topic, Why isn't Indiana on daylight savings time????!!!!!!
Look, rj, Dan asked for a write-in topic, so I wrote one. You don't have to read it. You don't have to like it. You don't have to comment on it.
But no matter what your opinion is on the issue, it did generate a discussion, which was my intention in the first place. You even commented on it, although you don't think it's a "real topic."
j,
I am compelled to point out that I compared the Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston Breakup to Martha Stewart in an attempt to illustrate that the media covers the mundane activites that celebrities undertake whether they are truly newsworthy or not. They cover the mundane crime that Martha Stewart committed as well as the mundane divorce the Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston are going to endure. If they were not famous people you would not have heard about these mundane activities. Therefore my reference to the unhappy couple has everything to do with your original post, meaning, I don't agree with your contention that Martha was treated like a queen because she was a Democrat. She was treated like a queen because she is a rich celebrity that went to prison for a few months.
You called the media's treatment disparities between Martha Stewart and Ken Lay a double standard. My point was that they are not a double standard. My point was that Martha Stewart's crime was not newsworthy, and therefore should have simply been prosecuted without media coverage. The only reason anyone cares is because she is famous, just like no one would care if Bradd Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were not famous.
Ken Lay, on the other hand has greatly affected nearly every aspect of corporate governance. His actions are hugely important, and are extremely newsworthy. On top of that he will probably be remembered for years to come as a notorious white collar criminal.
You are annoyed because you think that the media fawned over Martha's predicament. That very well may be, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for the case to be covered.
These disparities did not originate from a media political bias. The disparities originated from the purposes for which the media undertook to cover the stories.
You heard about Martha Stewart because it was gossip.
You heard about Ken Lay because it was news.
The disparities in media treatment spawned from that distinction, not from any media double standard handed out to Democrats and Rebublicans.
>>Note to Nathaniel: Did you read what I wrote? I didn't compare their crimes. I compared their treatment by the media. And from the other things you wrote, it sounds as if you believe everything they say. You spew the standard anti-Bush hatred and arrogance that they feed you.<<
Who's been feeding me? My point is that the two idiots (Stewart and Lay) have no business of being compared in first place. While what Stewart did was illegal, her actions did not destroy the financial standing of hundreds of working Americans (Enron employees). Was Stewart handled with kid gloves? Perhaps. If she was, was it because of her celebrity status? Definitely. But to assume that Lay was Unjustly villified because his treatment is naive at best (and diehard partisan at worst.)
Blah. You spew the standard anti-(supposedly)liberal media hatred and arrogance that they've been feeding you.
Post a Comment