NYTimes editorial page on Martha Stewart

Joined May 26, 2001
Just a point of clarification: it is an "op-ed" piece -- someone else's personal opinion -- and NOT an official NY times editorial. And the Hillary Clinton reference was to the treatment each has received; it was not a comparison of the two people.

I have to admit to snorting my way through it. I don't think MS needs anyone to defend her -- she is capable of defending herself, and probably should, rather than sniff that the issue is ridiculous. It's not: it is a matter of trust having been broken by someone who is looked up to by many. Not as bad as the FBI/CIA or Catholic Church messes, but more immediate and pertinent to a lot of people.

I suppose the writer knows whereof she speaks: her book has been described thus by Temple University Press:

If that's not MS, what is?
Joined Mar 3, 2002
Suzanne, you're right on both points. My only intention was to get the reference to the article out because of previous interest shown about MS in an earlier thread, so I was too inattentive to the details. Thanks for picking up on it.

I have no strong personal attitude towards either of these women, but I found the comparison of Martha Stewart to Hillary Clinton interesting because of the heat generated whenever their names come up. They are among the numerous celebrities around whose Image people's opinions polarize.

I emphasize "image" because, for most of us, we don't know the people themselves beyond the persona as presented on TV, in their writings, etc. Some even become metaphors that linger over time because they capture some quality of their times. It's not a recent phenomenon. Just think, we're still referring to a particular type of behavior or personality as "Byronic" or "Napoleonic."
Top Bottom