Search Details

Word: stewart (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...popularity of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” is a good example of our sensitivity to context. Unlike other nighttime political humor on the Leno-Letterman-Conan axis, Stewart relies less on jokes that begin with a nugget of news, followed by a made-up punch line. For the most part, the humor of his “fake” news routine lies in the fact that it’s not fake at all…he allows politicians and journalists to mock themselves. My friends and I often blink in disbelief...

Author: By Peter P.M. Buttigieg, | Title: Running Out of Context | 3/22/2004 | See Source »

...keeping score at home, that's about $10,999,955,000 more in financial skulduggery than was involved in Martha Stewart's trial. (Stewart saved $45,000 by selling her ImClone shares when she did.) No one embodies late 1990s speculation more than Ebbers, 62, who as CEO of a high-flying telecom operated at the epicenter of the tech bubble. Ebbers grew unimaginably rich on paper by securing millions of stock options. When WorldCom's growth machine began to sputter so did its stock price, denting Ebbers' net wealth. Yet he tapped WorldCom's cash reserves for hundreds...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Next: WorldCom's $11 Billion Case | 3/15/2004 | See Source »

...trial will be far more complicated than Stewart's. For one, jurors will have to parse evidence based on accounting issues that are complex and deadly dull. And there are nagging questions as to why Ebbers, who held almost all his WorldCom stock until the bitter end, didn't dump more shares if he knew the price was propped with bogus financials...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Next: WorldCom's $11 Billion Case | 3/15/2004 | See Source »

Guilty Martha Stewart may be headed to prison. How did it come to this...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Table of Contents: Mar. 15, 2004 | 3/15/2004 | See Source »

...theories to explain the obvious. Lawyers for the Rigas family, which performed the remarkable feat of bankrupting a cable company, say their clients can't be guilty of a conspiracy to loot the company because they are too dimwitted: one is "not the savviest guy," another is "clueless." Martha Stewart's defense, by contrast, was in part that she is too clever to have done anything as dumb as conspiring to break the securities laws...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: In Defense of Excess | 3/15/2004 | See Source »

Previous | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | Next