Burns says journalists have lied about Martha and covered up the "secret" Martha who is "coarse and foul-mouthed and vituperative"
"...in publicizing her as much as they have over the years, journalists have perpetrated a hoax. It is as if they had touted an atheist for his spiritual values, a fat man for his weight-loss program, an alcoholic for his praise of abstinence." --Eric Burns, Fox News
Fox News reporter Eric Burns responded in his column (A Media-Enhanced Stewart) to a question we recently posed in a Washington Post article: Why dont the people who dislike Martha Stewart so much just ignore her?"
According to Mr. Burns, it's because the journalists who wrote nice things about Martha all these years were lying to us. They were covering up all the bad things they knew about Martha, and they now feel very bad about not telling us the truth. According to Eric Burns, it is now redemption time, and those same journalists who lied to you and me before are now about to go after Martha Stewart with a vengeance. According to Burns:
"Martha Stewart is selling refinement, and she is herself coarse and foul-mouthed and vituperative. Her very fame is, in other words, so hypocritically based that it is a joke played not only on Stewart's many fans, but upon the journalists who have for so long fed those fans such a sanitized image of the woman."
I have two questions:
Question One: Who are these journalists ,Eric? We want their names, which you so conveniently left out of your article. Or do these journalists really only exist in your mind? Isn't the real issue that you "fair and balanced" male journalists only report when women act like "bitches" but not when men act like a mad dog in heat? Isn't the real issue that there is a double-standard?
We know one journalist who agrees, and so do you. His name Neil Cavuto. Neil, who also happens to work at Fox , wrote a piece on Martha Stewart called "Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman." Here's some of what Neil said:
"Some people love to hate Martha. Why? I think because she's an easy target: rich, bitchy, hard-driving and a woman. It's funny, we can tolerate those tenacious qualities in a male, but apparently not when it's a female. Why?
"Giants like Bed, Bath and Beyond, or Linens and Things don't generate half the buzz or get a tenth the grief. And they kind of do what Martha does. Good men running them both and pretty tenacious chaps themselves.
"Maybe Martha does bring a lot of this on herself. She's ruthless, aggressive and takes no prisoners. These are qualities we admire in big muckety-mucks. Unless, of course, those big muckety-mucks aren't wearing a tie."
So Eric, is Neil Cavuto wrong to say that there is a double standard in the media that penalizes strong female executives? Have you ever written such a bitchy piece about any of these men? Don't answer. The answer to both questions is an emphatic no.
Question Two: Eric, If these journalists were lying to us before when they were building Martha up, why should we believe them now when they are bringing Martha down? Why should we believe you?
Just a few months ago, Eric Burns published an article lambasting the media and the public for the attention they pay to celebrities and their personalities and private lives. The title of the article: Journalism panders to viewer bad taste. Burns called viewers who watch these celebrity reports a "blight on society," and whacked the media for running these stories. Now he's calling on journalists to reveal what they know about Martha Stewart's personality and private life. But you can't have it both ways Eric. Pick a position and try to stick with it for at least a few months. That may help restore a modicum of credibility.
The Tabloid Terrorsts just dont get it
What Eric Burns does not realize is that Martha's fans do not believe these stories, nor do they care. Martha's fans like the quality of her products, her show and magazine. If you drive a Mercedes, and someone says the head of Daimler-Chrysler is a bad guy, do you switch to a Honda because Japanese people are more polite than Germans? Martha's fans have stayed loyal in spite of journalists like Burns and Byron raking her over the coals, and that seems to be driving them crazy. But that's a conversation these writers really should have with their shrinks, not with their readers.