Throughout the case study on Martha Stewart, evidence provided illustrates how public relations can alter the image of a national personality in both negative and positive lights. In particular, the case illustrates how Stewart’s initially poor public relations responses tarnished her image and, only after changing her tactics, did she actually work toward correcting the problem. Ultimately, the Martha Stewart case is pivotal in illustrating how the power of public relations, if used correctly, can revamp a person’s public portrait----even if formal charges of criminal activity exist.

Martha Stewart, a “model student” and iconic legend of the kitchen, has been world renown for her success and outspokenness in the past; however, upon receiving allegations of insider trading, Stewart actually became a ‘silent diva’ by inevitably isolating herself from all media and society (Seitel, 17-18). Although this initial public relations response helped Martha avoid responding to the pressing questions from the media, I believe that her silence was counterintuitive to proving her innocence in the sense that her natural personality was “typically feisty” (18). Using logical thinking, most Americans accused of a crime that they were not responsible for would protest, appeal, and flat out become outraged----actions that an already “feisty” Stewart surely would have carried out had she truly believed in her innocence. By remaining silent and withdrawing from her daily life on talk shows, lectures, and as CEO, she in fact confirmed the already held perception of her guilt. By essentially shutting out the public, Stewart in effect was violating the public relations principle of “continuous two-way communication to prevent alienation and to build relationships” (6). Essentially the alienation of a “woman who had seemed to be everywhere [and] was now virtually out of