Yeah, that was more than a little harsh. I should’ve toned it down. The post I was responding to just pushed a button, I guess.
2trew’s suggestion that I was citing to a TV movie rather than simply requesting more information about the book upon which the TV-movie was based is still stupid, though.
Do you always base your opinions on hearsay characterizations?
Just as an aside, Salomon Bros. and Smith Barney no longer exist. They’ve all merged into what is now known as Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Please do tell how she “pretends to meet that high standard.” Surely she doesn’t deny that she has a staff at her home. Surely she doesn’t deny that subordinates do a lot of the prep work for the stuff she prepares on her show.
Jesus, if that’s your standard, then every TV cook is pretending to meet a high standard. Or did you think Emeril chops all the onions himself before each show?
Ms. Stewart did not always have a staff. She wasn’t always a billionaire. There was a time, long before K-Mart endorsement deals and TV shows and vanity magazines and IPOs, when she did all that stuff herself. You’re kidding yourself if you think, should all the riches disappear tomorrow, that Ms. Stewart would be incapable of managing a household on her own.
And even if she can’t: so what? What’s wrong with promulgating high standards, even if one can’t always make the mark oneself? What’s wrong with instructing people on how to bake the perfect pie, even if when you go home you have your staff do the baking for you? Assuming the pie is actually a good pie, what difference does it make?
Sweetie? You and a few others here seem to be confusing MY merely answering your ONE question (remember I wasn’t commenting on any of the insider trading stuff), with my personal opinion regarding Martha.
You asked, in effect (sorry for the paraphrase, I’m not going back to the first page to paste, my work puter is too slow), “so in spite of the enron thing, why do people hate her so much”?
I answered THAT question and that question alone, and so have many other posters here. I’m not the one who brought up the example of her snotty attitude on Dave, another poster did.
I’m not very knowledgeable about how stocks work, so I’ll leave that to those, like Dantheman and DCU who do seem to have a lot of knowledge in that area.
So, to answer your question and some others who didn’t seem to get what I was saying the first time.
The reason that so many people are taking such glee from what she’s going through, even though it’s (the enron thing) unrelated to the fact that she’s an unpleasant bitch. Is that they likely feel it’s poetic justice. NOT because they are saying “ha ha the RICH bitch is getting taken down a peg” but because they are feeling that all the years of her bad behaviour toward people etc is being paid back, from a karmic standpoint.
As to how it effects me? Shoes? I couldn’t care less. I’ve caught her show a few times, the things I’ve seen her make are useless and tacky. I have a busy and productive life, I don’t need the likes of someone who can’t even muster civility on her TV show to validate that I’m doing a good job with my home and my life.
Oh and FTR? I make the best cornbread on the planet!! 
DCU - re: “why didn’t the partner sue?” Isn’t a more interesting question: “If these books contain material mischaracterizations/falsehoods, why didn’t Martha sue?”
wouldn’t a publishing house risk an awful lot by publishing a demonstratably false scenario in a book about a very public figure?
Nope, and that’s not what I was doing there either. Someone had asked a question, another poster asked for examples that was it.
I find it kindof funny that a few posts ago you were jumping down another poster’s throat for taking one statement out of your post out of context without reading your whole line of reasoning, and yet here you are doing the same.
You grumpy old thing!!! (:))
No, they would not – in fact, they risk substantially less by publishing material abouta public figure. The publisher is protected by the first amendment. Martha Stewart is a public figure, and thus would have to show “actual malice” in order to successfully sue the publisher.
“Actual malice” means they either (i) knew it was false, or (ii) showed a “reckless disregard for the truth.” “Reckless disregard” here does not mean a negligent failure to investigate, but rather the publisher having serious doubts as to the veracity of the published material. If the publisher thought Collier sounded credible, they were not obligated to further investigate.
The bottom line: it’s virtually impossible for a public figure to win a defamation suit on these types of facts.
Sure it was. You claimed Martha Stewart answered in a snotty fashion. You based this on the article’s author’s characterization of Ms. Stewart. You were therefore basing your opinion of how Ms. Stewart sounded in that instance on the hearsay characterization of a third party – namely, the article’s author.
Sure it was. You claimed Martha Stewart answered in a snotty fashion. You based this on the article’s author’s characterization of Ms. Stewart. You were therefore basing your opinion of how Ms. Stewart sounded in that instance on the hearsay characterization of a third party – namely, the article’s author.
I’m another fan of Martha Stewart’s products. I don’t care two hoots about her personality.
Somehow, I managed to grow up without learning any domestic skills. Hosting an adult dinner party was a very stressful event for me. I got a lot of tips from Martha Stewart that made it much less so. There’s a lot of good stuff from her company that I’ve enjoyed greatly.
As to living up to an impossible standard set by Miss Martha herself, I really couldn’t care less about that. Who’s going to care if I don’t? Martha? As far as I can tell, she’ll never visit my house. And those who do hardly live up to the Martha image themselves. I just look on her advice as how to do something perfectly. If I want to do it perfectly, I’ll find some good advice there. For things I don’t care to do perfectly, who really cares?
Is she a bitch? Probably so. But, again, I couldn’t care less. I have no idea whether the CEOs of other companies that produce products I enjoy are sweethearts, bitches, assholes, or raving loonies. It doesn’t affect my enjoyment of their products. That’s not to say I would never boycott a product based on the person behind it. If someone were truly heinous (I’m thinking in terms of a neo-nazi, child molester, or someone whose business practiced gross discrimination), then I very well may. But just because their personality is unpleasant? Nah.
As to her indictment, that doesn’t affect my opinion of her products since I never really let my view of her influlence that. Plus, I haven’t seen all the evidence both ways, and she hasn’t been convicted yet. If she is, I guess it won’t affect my enjoyment of her products because I don’t consider that particular offense to be bad enough.
Unfortunately for Omnimedia, so much of their product is tied up in the person and image of Martha herself that I do think some people will avoid their products. That’s a shame–I like my Living magazine, dammit!
Just my opinion, but I do think some of the aggressive zeal of the prosecutors is due to the fact that they know this will be a high profile case, and they want to get the coverage to further their careers, gain publicity for themselves, etc. I doubt they would spend this kind of time and resources going after Jane Noname.
wait a sec, DCU you aren’t claiming, (are you?) that anyone can publish anything they wish about a public figure and as long as there wasn’t any malice, the public figure has no recourse?
If, for example, Martha’s former business partner is falsely claiming that Martha during their partnership was hired a client brought in by the partner and kept the $$, and Martha knew that was absolutely false are you claiming that she couldn’t file suit to stop publication of falsehoods? demand that lie be stricken from later runs of the book etc?
at the time when the partnership broke up, presumably neither partner were well off. Wouldn’t it have been difficult and expensive to sue under those circumstances? (especially if you’re talking about keeping half of profits from one catering job)
Sigh, you know? It’s not really that big a deal. I was posting ONE incidence of her snottiness and using it as an example to answer another poster. I guess I should have listed all 5000 incidences in which I’ve personally heard her snooty tone.
My fault.
But, to answer your questions, both here and above, I’ve seen her in interviews herself.
And to your question “does she deny having help”? I guess you’d just have to see her in action, her little comments “Oh I just whipped this up in my spare time” etc etc.
Her lack of acknowledging any help she does get. And again (SIGH), I was originally attempting to answer Zebra’s valid question, NOT saying how I felt about her.
Her standards aren’t “high standards”, because youi’re right, having high standards is a good thing. (sorry)
The standards she touts for the average American woman are impossible ones, one’s which she herself couldn’t possibly acheive, but in contrast (on her show etc) she gives the impression that she can and does meet them.
That is why, in addition to her lousy “look down her nose” attitude, a lot of AMERICANS don’t lilke her. And again, I wasn’t saying that I personally thought those things, I was merely (originally til so many people got offtrack) answering Zebra’s question.
My posts have been why do PEOPLE hate her, NOT why does Shoes hate her (or not).
That is exactly what I’m saying (the key being the absence of malice, as defined above).
It’s a bitch being a public figure. **
Nope. She could presumably sue her former business partner, since she obviously knew of the falsity of the claims, but she couldn’t do a goddamned thing to the publisher.
Now, if Stewart sent the publisher a truckload of evidence prior to publication that her former partner was lying – evidence such that the publisher would have serious doubts about the veracity of the story – and the publisher decided to publish the story anyway, then she could claim actual malice. Obviously, that’s problematic because it would require you to know the contents of the book before it is published. Could work for later editions, though.
There are two other problems with Stewart suing the publisher:
Actual malice must be shown by “clear and convincing evidence,” a higher evidentiary standard than the normal civil suit standard of a “preponderance of evidence.”
30+ years after the fact, it’s would be very hard to develop evidence that the former partner is lying. Memories of witnessess fade, records get lost, etc, etc, etc. If I were to ask you to produce a bank statement from 30 years ago, do you think you could do it?**
The catering business was doing well. I have no idea what the dollar amount would be, but it potentially could be a lot of money. And the future value of the trade name would be substantial – that alone would be worth suing over.
Expensive? Maybe. But contingency fees could be used to eliminate out-of-pocket costs. If nothing else, you’d think Collier would at least consult with an attorney and have him send a few demand letters in order to force a settlement. Of course, that would require that Collier have a halfway decent claim against Stewart. Which is why I suspect her claims aren’t quite as damning as the book makes them out to be.
Almost forgot: a third problem. Stewart would have to show damage to her reputation. Since she already has something of a reputation (deserved or not) as a shrewd, calculating, nasty woman, I doubt she could prove that the two books seriously injured her reputation.
I guess I wasn’t clear - this latest post was under the caption of “why doesn’t Martha sue the former business partner” (who presumably would have “some” $$ due to book sales, but substantially less than Martha who could afford a big ass attorney [sup]tm[/sup]). So I’m still curious, that if she “knew” the factual stuff was untrue, why she’s not taken any legal action against those responsible.
and while the catering business was ‘doing well’, any individual catering job itself wouldn’t represent (I suspect) a large enough pot of ‘shared money’ to become worth filing suit over.
the partner would (presumably) be suing for ‘her share’ of the profits from whatever job Martha stole. Which, I’m suggesting wouldn’t have amounted to much, certainly less probably than it was worth once attorney’s fees etc were taken into consideration.
I doubt Collier made any money off of the book. She was just interviewed; she didn’t write or publish it.
And that’s the reason why Martha wouldn’t sue Collier. Collier presumably doesn’t have any money, at least not enough to collect a judgment worth pursuing by someone worth billions. And Collier has nothing to do with the publication of the book. To stop that, you have to sue the publisher – and as I’ve outlined, they’re protected.
So yeah, Stewart could sue Collier, but that suit woudn’t accomplish what Stewart’s presumed goal would be, i.e., stopping publication of the book.
Of course, that all assumes that Stewart can prove that Collier is lying – not an easy task thirty years down the road – and that she can show damage to her reputation. And let’s not forget to take into account the bad P.R. such a suit would probably generate – “Billionairess picks on poor ex-partner” wouldn’t play well in the media. **
Actually, she’d be also be suing for half of the partnership assets, including the trade name which could be quite valuable. Even if Collier wanted to get out of the catering biz, she could sell that trade name to another caterer for good money.
Even absent that, you’d be surprised at the relatively small sums that people will litigate over. You don’t have to hire a Big Ass Law Firm for such matters – your local solo practitioner could handle it easily, and at a rate low enough to make it worth your time.
Seriously. If everything Collier says is gospel truth, then this is an easy case to make. I doubt very seriously it would go to trial – it would probably settle very quickly. Legal costs would be minimal (Ms. Stewart would not have the benefit of a contingency fee and thus would have her own incentive to settle quickly to control legal expenses).
Frankly (and this is just a WAG) I suspect that their partnership agreement wasn’t nearly as clear-cut as Collier says it was. I suspect it at least arguably allowed each to take on individual jobs when both either could not or did not want to take the job on collectively.
For those that want to get Martha Stewart’s point of view on all of this you can visit her official website specifically created to give her response to all of the criminal allegations. The website has just gone up so there is not a whole lot on it right now. But I’m sure it will get updated as the criminal process goes on.
I’m sorry, I can’t let that one go by. I’ve never once been given the impression that she thinks that anyone should do any of the projects she features, describes or demonstrates. I’ve never heard her use language to even so much as intimate as much.
CanvasShoes, by your own admission, you’ve only watched “a few of” Martha’s shows, yet you seem perfectly happy to make these sweeping statements about her attitude and her “standards” (I wasn’t aware that Martha was a standard-bearer) and they’re just not anything like what I’ve seen. And I say that from a position of owning every one of Martha’s books, (including the ones from before her name became a brand). I also subscribe to her magazine, watch her show regularly, even TiVo the cooking cutouts that are repackaged for the Food Network (“From Martha’s Kitchen”). Given that, I’d say I have a bit more basis for making judgments about how Martha presents things on her show than you do.
And I have never heard Martha suggest that she does all of the work herself. I have frequently heard Martha credit her staffers for developing a project or recipe (often having them on the show to demonstrate it with her) or say something like “I first saw a {insert X thing}/tasted a recipe like {insert X yummy dish} at {insert X location} when I was on vacation there. When I got home, I knew I had to try it for myself.” Frequently that also translates into having chefs come in and make their signature dishes on her show, because Martha visited their restaurant, liked their food and invited them to come and appear.
And I don’t think that any adult watching doesn’t realize that when she says that she wanted to “try it for myself” that it means anything other than “sit down with my craft/decorating/pet care/gardening/kitchen staff and work out a way to do it and also a way to demonstrate it on the show and in the books/magazines and see what tools used in relation to this could be sold in the catalog and on the website” because Martha isn’t just herself, she’s a brand and a company and everyone knows that.
I have read and heard repeated suggestions that a project would be a good part of X plan or theme or scheme, if that’s what someone wants. (That’s what the “good thing” thing is all about.) I have read and heard repeated suggestions that projects which seem complicated or beyond someone’s capabilities when looking at the finished product are actually easy and well within the regular person’s grasp if they start with the right materials, right tools and simply follow the steps.
The only time the word “should” has been bandied about is in the context of directions: “you should be sure to plant the tulip bulbs 3 to 5 inches below the soil” or “you should be sure to use real butter in this recipe, margarine just won’t produce the right results”. It’s also been used as a means of encouragement: “you should not be afraid to try this, or experiment with variations on this” or in statements of opinion “I think that you should never keep coffee beans in the freezer, it just destroys the flavor.” and so on.
As to the whole “she sets a standard” thing, well, maybe for those suffering a pathetic lack of self-awareness. Who else could honestly strive to have a “Martha” house in any sense other than they want their home to be neat, well-maintained, well-decorated and well-coordinated – a standard which can certainly be met. And even if someone was really ever so mentally cracked as to think, for even a moment, “Oh no, my house isn’t Martha perfect! I’m failing as a woman!” that wouldn’t be Martha’s fault.
So Martha Stewart had an unfriendly split with her business partner who disappeared into obscurity. That’s happened more times than any ofus could count. So she gets frustrated when her staff doesn’t follow her directions and she yells. She’s the first? She gets sick and tired of having to be answerable for supposed crimes against the feminist cant and she snaps at the eleventy millionth pointy headed little girl who accuses her – in a completely inappropriate venue, at that – of not being down for the sisterhood. So the hell what?
She’s a bitch. She’s a bitch who is damn good at what she does. Ain’t no crime in being a bitch.
Why does that matter? Because if everyone – including the SEC and the media – focused on what might be a crime, namely a technically iffy stock transaction, instead of all of the gleeful shredding of Martha-the-personality which translated into instability of Martha-the-corporate-entity, the stockholders and employees of Omnimedia wouldn’t all be nearly so screwed over now. And *that’s]/i] a big deal.
How is the SEC focusing on anything except prosecuting her? She’s been charged with lying to the SEC and to the FBI. Are you seriously suggesting the SEC has been persuaded by the court of public opinion to indict her?