December 13, 2005
MARTHA STEWART RENEWED AND CONTRADICTED
Any Martha Stewart fans out there? My GF likes the domestic diva enough to watch her nationally-syndicated daily how-to home-oriented talk show each day after work, and the two of us have been faithful followers of her weekly prime-time reality show, "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart."
While it was announced yesterday that Stewart's daytime show, simply titled MARTHA (produced by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and reality TV guru Mark Burnett, and distributed by NBC Universal Domestic Television Distribution to over 98 percent of the country) was renewed for the 2006-2007 television season, it's the icon's own comments in a recent interview with BusinessWeek Magazine's Editor-in-Chief Stephen J. Adler that I think is more newsworthy and absurd. From last Thursday's interview:
BusinessWeek's Adler: A big part of your reintroduction to the public has been two TV shows that launched this year: The Apprentice: Martha Stewart and MARTHA. Which has been more satisfying to you?
Martha Stewart: It's unusual for me to take a job like The Apprentice, and it was just a job. I got paid a fee. I have no participation in the show. Generally, we're the originators. But I did it because I knew it would be a jump-start, and it would get attention.
BusinessWeek's Adler: You're getting close to the conclusion.
Martha Stewart: Yeah, we're getting close to which of those inappropriate contestants we are actually going to have to hire. I can't believe people behave like that. They're exhibitionists and opportunists, those kids. I did not choose them either, by the way. I just want you to know I had nothing to do really with the choice of the contestants.
BusinessWeek's Adler: You are an opinion leader in a lot of areas, but I haven't heard a lot about your political views. Who should be President in 2008?
Martha Stewart: If there is a woman running, I will be voting for the woman. I think [Hillary Clinton] would do a wonderful job. I think it would be very difficult and a big struggle for her, but I think she of all women out there would do a very good job. And maybe it's time for a woman President.
Okay, so who wants to take the first shot, err... I mean, in light of her comments, who wants to share their views? Mine are in the "Comments" area accessible by the "Comments" link below!
Posted by Mikal at December 13, 2005 8:28 AM
| TrackBack
On almost each episode of ìThe Apprentice: Martha Stewart,î the showís namesake doles out wisdom, advice, and directives on everything from ìbrandingî and ìbelieving in your ideas,î to whatís considered ìappropriateî and what is not in the workplace and interview process.
With that focus in mind, I find Stewartís comments about her showís contestants particularly contradictory. In the same breath she uses to tell BusinessWeek that she accepted the gig on NBCís Apprentice because she ìgot paid a feeî and because ìit would get attention,î she also says she considers her showís contestantís to be inappropriate exhibitionists and opportunists.
Hmm, so I guess whatís good for the goose isnít necessarily good for the gander then!
ANDÖ
Cast your 2008 vote for President of the United States for a woman just because the candidateís a woman? Talk about inappropriate. What ever happened to carefully evaluating candidates based on their track record, views, and on the issues about to face the Nation at or around the time of the election?
"What ever happened to carefully evaluating candidates based on their track record, views, and on the issues about to face the Nation at or around the time of the election?"
That never existed before, why start now? I think if we actually followed those values while electing someone, a woman would have president long before now.
I can't say I agree with why Martha chose to do the Apprentice, but she's certainly right about the people on the show not being ideal candidates for any job I know of. The whole premise of the show is just absurd.
Yo Mikal, you always find the good stuff. I have not seen the shows nor read the article, but those answers are amazing coming from someone of such stature. It sounds like she is embarrased about her association with the show; but, then one has to ask why she allowed herself to be so connected. Still incredibly wealthy, you wonder where her priorities are. Springer does a great job on Air America and I have heard him say negative things about his show; his priorities are very, very humanistic however. I agree on the endorsement of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me, Martha Stewart has some s-plane-in to do. She knowingly broke the law to make a few more bucks on a stock trade, she has supported this nihilistic show, and has made this sketchy political endorsement. By the way, I would support the always graceful, tough and intelligent, Nancy Pelosi; not that anyone asked.
I'm sure there was a lot of uncertainty in Martha's life when she decided to accept the Apprentice gig. Now that she's back on her feet again, I think it makes sense for her to distance herself from that show.
I don't think the Hillary comment should be taken too literally. "Hillary for President" is a code phrase that Martha used to make a statement about how she views the world and who her people are.
I totally get it.
"She knowingly broke the law to make a few more bucks on a stock trade..."
Um, she was convicted for lying to a federal official -- who didn't take notes or record the conversation -- while NOT UNDER OATH. Hmm. I don't care what she did, but I'm quite sure had her political dollars been spent on Republicans, she would have dodged this bullet.
As for her negative comments, all you have to do is listen to her on her daily show to know she thinks doing the Apprentice wasn't the best idea, and that, indeed, the contestants are all opportunists no matter how fat their resumes are.
Martha did not get to be one of the wealthiest most powerful women by being a dumba$$. Self-promotion is part of her gig, just like the hideous Madonna from the 80s. As much as I might disagree with or dislike Martha (or Madonna, for that matter) it takes those kinds of women to enable the culture to think of women in different terms. I haven't heard anybody ragging on Mr. Trump for his opportunism and branding (Trump water, for pete's sake???)
I don't watch Martha's Apprentice, so I can't say much on that, except that I'm sure her advice is scripted for her. The fact that she's acknowledging the contestants' opportunism isn't the criticism of them -- it's that their opportunistic behavior makes them undesirable candidates for the work she wants them to do. You are right though, it is the pot calling the proverbial kettle black.
I'm having a hard time separating my personal views on Hillary in '08 from my regard for Martha's response. I think Vanessa's reaction here is spot on, especially when taken with Jay's point about Repub $$ and her legal fiasco. Nancy Pelosi: Now there's a thought. I'd love to see a woman as Pres, but right now I'm just hungry for some real leadership from the Dems. At this point, I feel like I'm going to have to vote for McCain! Yikes. For the record, I'm a Hillary fan, but I don't think she should run for President -- for the same reason I don't think GWB should have run and I hope and pray Jeb doesn't run: When the same family gets to run a country over and over, it's called a monarchy. Last time I checked, we still live in what is supposed to be a democracy.
How's that for tangential?
Post a Comment:
|
