by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
July 21, 2004
The sentencing of homemaking guru Martha Stewart that took place on July 16 is further proof, not that we needed it, of the blending of news with entertainment. With publications such as the National Inquirer and television shows such as Entertainment Tonight being extremely popular, there has been a move for some time to add an entertainment component to the news. Certainly the domestic diva’s fall from grace, if indeed she did fall, is newsworthy. But the sentence that Stewart received and the saturation coverage of it was hardly the big news that the media made it into.
Stewart was found guilty last March of lying about the circumstances surrounding her sale of ImClone stock on December 27, 2001. Ever since then it had been reported that the sentencing guidelines require a sentence of between 10 to 16 months. Steward received 10 months--5 months in custody and 5 months under house arrest. When she did receive the minimum sentence under the guidelines, the media exploded as if this was shocking and breaking news. after the sentencing, there was a plethora of articles and news items about life in a minimum institution and how she’ll cope. Not to leave out the house arrest portion of her sentence, there were widespread reports about whether or not the electronic bracelet that Stewart will be required to wear will allow her full access to her palatial estate. Ever since her conviction, the media has reported the fact that she was going to be incarcerated. Now we’re getting all these jailhouse stories for a second time.
The hard reality is that Stewart’s time spent in a minimum security prison will be no easier or harder than that spent by other so-called white collar criminals who are jailed for the first time. The harping by the media about the high living lifestyle that Stewart will be deprived of is greatly overblown.
What is practically ignored by the media with respect to the legal ramifications from the ImClone stock sale is the sentence of her co-accused, Peter Bacanovic. Bacanovic was Stewart’s stockbroker. While media reports sometimes said that Stewart was insider trading, she wasn’t an insider. Peter Bacanovic was. Despite the fact that he was an insider and he more than Stewart should have known better, Bacanovic received the same sentence that Martha did. Instead of speculating what Stewart’s cell will look like and whether or not she will be able to decorate it, it would be nice if the media spent more time discussing the stockbroker’s sentence.
If Martha Stewart fails in her appeal and ends up presenting herself to the penal authorities, there will no doubt be another flurry of over reporting about her life in the big house.
and that would be a boring thing.