« Come again? | Main | Journalism »

The death of irony?

The Wall Street Journal opinion page is irate at the federal prosecutors handling Martha Stewart's case.

The WSJ says that Stewart's crimes, if there are any, aren't that big. It compares it to lying about speeding. Also, since she hasn't been charged with insider trading, they note that she shouldn't be charged (as she has been) with lying about participating in insider trading. (It's more complicated than this, but, basically, Stewart denied that she committed a crime, and the prosecutors have used this denial to charge her with misleading the prosecution and her stockholders). The prosecutors, the WSJ claims, are overreaching.

I wonder if the WSJ was able to write all this with a straight face? Or if they were intending to be ironic?

The Wall Street Journal, of course, was unrelenting in its pursuit of President Clinton. Clinton, whose crime (if you actually believe it was a crime), was lying about something he did. And the thing he lied about wasn't even a crime.

You can't support Martha Stewart and not support President Clinton. It's not logically possible. Except if you're the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (3)


Partha--which story are you talking about. I read today's op-ed page and I don't think I saw anything.


I don't see the contradiction. In the case of Martha Stewart, they're saying she told the truth when she said she didn't do insider trading. Their evidence is that she didn't get charged. Meanwhile, President Clinton was lying (under oath, no less) about having sex. Of course he didn't get charged for the subject of his lies, since having sex is legal. I haven't read the article, so I may be missing something.

If Martha Stewart had been a sitting president when she did what she did, I'd gladly support her impeachment. Fortunately for us all, she wasn't.

What you (Partha) seem to miss is that Clinton benefitted from being a celebrity (to be more precise, Paula Jones's lawsuit was less successful to the extent that Clinton got away with his lie), meanwhile Martha Stewart is getting royally screwed as a result of her own celebrity.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 9, 2003 4:14 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Come again?.

The next post in this blog is Journalism.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31