May 16, 2016

The woman in the featured anecdote in "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private" says the NYT distorted her story.

The article started off with the story of Donald Trump offering a bathing suit to a woman who had arrived at his pool party with no bathing suit. I thought it was a nothing story and putting it first telegraphed that the Times — for all its 50+ interviews — hadn't uncovered much of anything.

But now we have that woman, Rowanne Brewer Lane, outraged at the way the NYT told her story, which it called "a debasing face-to-face encounter between Mr. Trump and a young woman he hardly knew." Brewer Lane says:
"Actually, it was very upsetting. I was not happy to read it at all," Brewer Lane said. "Well, because The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story that I was telling came across. They promised several times that they would do it accurately. They told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly, and it absolutely was not."...

"They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump, and I don't appreciate them making it look like that I was saying that it was a negative experience because it was not," Brewer Lane said....

"If anybody would ask me, how did you meet Donald Trump? You are going to get the story of how I was at a pool party at Mar-A-Lago with my agency and a lot of other people and it was a night party and I had a photo shoot that I had done all day and I had another photo shoot the next day, and I almost didn't go, but my agent asked me if I would please come up and just enjoy for a while and so I did, and I didn't wear a bathing suit. I didn't have a swimsuit," she said.

Read the opening line of the story, "Donald J. Trump had barely met Rowanne Brewer Lane when he asked her to change out of her clothes," Brewer Lane was asked whether that was true or false. False, she said.

"I came from a shoot like I said, and I started talking with Donald and chatting with him over the course of the first maybe 20 minutes I was there, and we seemed to get along in conversation nicely, and it just very normally and naturally evolved into a conversation. We started walking around the mansion. He started showing me the architecture. We were having a very nice conversation, and we got into a certain part of it and he asked me if I had a swimsuit. I said I didn't. I had not really planned on swimming. He asked me if I wanted one. I said OK, sure. And I change into one, and the part where I went back out to the pool party and he made a comment now that's a stunning Trump girl right there, I was actually flattered by. I didn't feel like it was a demeaning situation or comment at all, and that's what I told the Times, and they spun it completely differently."
Eagerness to portray women as exploited seems to have motivated the NYT to exploit women.

I can imagine the NYT defending itself by saying that often young women do not understand the way they are being manipulated and exploited. Within that explanation, to say "I was actually flattered" is to reveal your naivete. That's how the manipulation works. He got her into a bathing suit and then, presenting her to the crowd, said "That is a stunning Trump girl, isn’t it?" How was she a "Trump girl"? Ah, but it felt flattering. Even now, she feels the relationship was very nice, very rewarding, but she doesn't know the import of her own words, the NYT will (I suspect) say. It will say, I predict, that her story was not distorted at all. The facts are all true. They are just viewed from a more sophisticated perspective.

Now, there's a big problem with that explanation. It's saying the woman doesn't understand the meaning of her own experience. That feels like a putdown — a putdown and a stereotype: Women are simpleminded and can be bought off with pretty clothes and flattery. There's a way to say that without provoking the ire of the great masses of women who matter when it comes to an election: Only the young and very pretty women are segmented off and treated so well they only have good feelings about it, and only they are being put down.

It will be interesting to see how this story plays out. The press is trying so hard to get us to hate Trump over women that it has created great energy around this juicy topic. Stay tuned.

76 comments:

Limited blogger said...

Everything in 2008 was about racism. Everything in 2016 will be about sexism? I don't think America will buy it this time.

Quaestor said...

Yellow journalism... with tan lines.

campy said...

"Everything in 2008 was about racism. Everything in 2016 will be about sexism? I don't think America will buy it this time."

'America' hasn't got a choice in the matter.

CStanley said...

Looking forward to the companion piece on the Clintons.

I realize it's hackneyed to complain about bias, but the NYT trying to dig up stories of Trump treating young women badly when his opponent is married to Bill Clinton (and is known to have taken his side against those women) is a new high water mark.

sane_voter said...

The left is always saying that the reality of harassment is the perception of the recipient. So if the recipient feels harassed then they were harassed, regardless of what a neutral bystander would think. But in this case, the Times says the neutral bystander POV is the correct one. I guess it's whatever makes men/conservatives/republicans look bad.

Quaestor said...

The fact that the editors of Times thought they could get away with a such half-assed hit piece is astonishing. Now that they've been hoist by their own petard I surmise that their arrogance will not permit them to see that they have strengthened Trump rather than weakened him.

amielalune said...

Feminists want ugly women to be treated exactly the same as pretty women in every circumstance. Therefore, they are OUTRAGED every time a man says or does something to show that he appreciates a woman's physical appearance. Normal women know when a man is trying to belittle them by a comment on their looks (probably 2% of the time), or if they are really just trying to be complimentary (probably 98% of the time). Feminists would like to make it illegal for a man to even notice that a woman is female. Their problem is that it's human nature to admire beauty; and definitely male nature to sometimes be clumsy about it.

If I'm at a party and an unattractive man comes up to me, he'd better have something interesting to talk about, or I won't spend much time with him. But if an attractive man starts a conversation, I am likely to spend more time talking to him, if only because he's enjoyable to look at. Sue me for discrimination.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump got a model out of her clothes, into a swim suit, and not long after into bed. Twenty-five years later she defends him against the NYT's.

I'd say Trump is a playaaaa.....

Just wait till Snoop Dog endorses him.

Chuck said...

The New York Times is written, edited and published by people who hate Republicans. And for the most part, it is read by people who also hate Republicans.

This is like worrying about Trump's image in Detroit, or Chicago, or San Francisco, where Republicans get approximately 1.25% of the vote.

David said...

She is lovely. Why would you not compliment her?

Gusty Winds said...

If Donald Trump told me I looked good in a swim suit, I'd be complimented.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

It's saying the woman doesn't understand the meaning of her own experience.

Timesplaining.

Laslo Spatula said...

Donald Dice Trump says:

It's a pool party, right? I'm Donald Dice Trump, I have a pool, I'm gonna throw pool parties.

So this chick shows up without a bathing suit. And I say "You need a bathing suit?" And she says "Sure." So I get her a bathing suit.

And she's Hot. What can I say, Hot Chicks dig me.

Now people are acting like this was a problem.

It's not like I told her to swim naked, you know?

Although if she wanted to, I'd be fine with that. The Donald don't mind naked twat in the pool.

Unless it was Hillary. Because she's got a Dead Mouse in her Vagina.

Woah!

I am Laslo.

Danno said...

Laslo nails it!

Eustace Chilke said...

I'm getting the sense that undecided voters are a smaller group this time than usual, and shrinking. I can cite no polls and I suppose pollsters have this all teased out to the finest thread and second by second. If I'm right, this contest will depend on holding onto or breaking off chunks of voters who already think they know how they'll vote, or on motivating voters who are with you to actually go and vote. I think AA's recent prediction is likely correct and the early breakdown favors The Donald. This kind of story just drives people into the camps they're already in and favors Trump for that reason. It even points a shadowy finger toward the vapor trail of the Lolita Express. Now, if they could just put Trump aboard they'd lose their minds in paroxysms of ecstasy. But it's way early and they're just getting warmed up. We'll see.

Sebastian said...

"Eagerness to portray women as exploited seems to have motivated the NYT to exploit women." Umm, yeah. So? As with any other story about any other topic that involves any Prog political interests, the manipulation of the "evidence" is entirely standard and predictable. It's who they are, it's what they do. At least you don't express surprise. Progress.

Purvi Rajani said...

"I can imagine the NYT defending itself by saying that often young women do not understand the way they are being manipulated and exploited." =>The way that Monica was?

traditionalguy said...

Sex sells. Both Women in bikinis in pageants and WWF men in tights sell tickets We have Reached peak New York Values here and the Bob Hope like emcee producing a vaudeville campaign seems to think he can treat us all like troops overseas. And we love it.

Once more the opposition is helping Trump win.

The Cleveland Convention just needs Dallas Cowboy Chearleader routines between speakers and a comedians emcee and all will be complete.

buwaya puti said...

The NYT isn't hoist by its own petard, they got what they intended out of this.
It's a poo-flinging match now, and will only get worse. Lucky for everyone if it doesn't get worse than poo. The stakes are very high.

buwaya puti said...

That's a canard about San Francisco. The Republican vote here is at least 12%.

William said...

The NYT just doesn't get it. The subtext of Trump's campaign is that the media is biased and unfair, and this piece is supportive of his narrative.. This piece is far more subversive of the media's fairness than of Trump's decency. This plays right into Trump's wheelhouse. Beyond this, there is the fact that Hillary's husband goes on fact finding trips with a convicted child rapist. You really have to tiptoe around the elephant in the room when you report on Trump's sexism.

Birches said...


I can imagine the NYT defending itself by saying that often young women do not understand the way they are being manipulated and exploited

This reminds me of a book I just read, American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers. Throughout the book girls are making dumb choice after dumb choice and don't seem bothered by it. But the author's conclusion is that the girls really never had a choice because sexism and patriarchy.

Hagar said...

Models at a pool party in a casino. So who was exploiting who here?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I can imagine the NYT defending itself by saying that often young women do not understand the way they are being manipulated and exploited.

No ma'am, you can't--not if you're familiar with the NYT/Left's line on the Monica Lewinsky affair. Remember? They were consenting adults, so the power imbalance, her relative youth, etc didn't in any way make it less consensual. Was the woman in the Trump story an adult? Was her interaction with Trump in any way less workplace-related than Lewinsky's job @the White House? I don't see how the NYTimes could make that argument, then, given their refusal to allow a similar argument to be made w/r/t President Clinton's treatment of his young intern.

Hagar said...

Seems more like "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The NYT'd better put some ice on that.

eric said...

This is where the nevertrump movement goes off the rails. Every negative story from the Times and WaPo and other outlets that are so obviously biased they jump on. Like the Fields "assault" they assume the worst is true. They assume it's true because they want it to be true.

Unlike the Times and WaPo, who have a large following on the left that will forgive them endlessly for getting it wrong about Republicans, the right isn't going to forgive and forget never Trump people who try and smear a man using lefty tactics.

Rumpletweezer said...

I haven't complimented a woman's appearance at work in over twenty years. I blame feminists and lawyers for that. So far I've been able to safely compliment my wife and daughters, but that could change.

Writ Small said...

Always in these stories Althouse finds to defend Trump, there are the unremarked upon nuggets.

Trump described a just-met model to an assembled group as a "Trump girl." These minor, self-aggrandizing lies are so a part of who he is that we hardly notice.

holdfast said...

The little nebbish of an NYT reporter was on one of the morning shows today (he totally looks like Chelsea's nebbish of a failed investment banker hubby) - he described the woman's reaction as being "taken aback". I think that's a walk-back in progress - I mean "taken aback" is less serious than "momentarily startled". Heck, if you give me a check for $10k out of the blue, I will be momentarily "taken aback" - but happy in the end.

I Callahan said...

Trump described a just-met model to an assembled group as a "Trump girl." These minor, self-aggrandizing lies are so a part of who he is that we hardly notice.

Lord.

So what? It's small potatoes. And I say that as a not-necessarily Trump guy.

Quaestor said...

The NYT isn't hoist by its own petard, they got what they intended out of this.

They intended to make themselves look like a cabal incompetent #NeverTrump trolls?

Michael Fitzgerald said...

NYT Timesplains to Trump-hugger: It was Sexist!!!

Dude1394 said...

The NYTimes story and the writers are sexist, no doubt. Many on the left are.

Dude1394 said...

Democrats (and their media ) will ALWAYS label any republican as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic. That is their playbook, they will lie about it, make stuff up, twist everything around to be that. As this article illustrates.

It is so refreshing to have a political leader just flat out say...in very crude language.. that is bull****. Absolute bull**** and you are a liar for saying it.

So refreshing.

n.n said...

It was not even soft pornography, let alone involuntary or superior exploitation for sexual relationships or "it". Perhaps that's where the problem for them lies, in normal human male-female relationships. They really need to get away from their insular environment. It's reducing them to tabloid journolism or something worse in the twilight zone.

buwaya puti said...

Few who read that will bother with the push back or explanation. It's poo, it sticks, or it doesn't, at the moment it's flung. It can't be cleaned off.
The only answer to this is to fling more of your own.
This is not a good state of affairs, but it is what it is.

Eustace Chilke said...

Tammy Bruce just said that even though this story is transparent elephant baiting it still serves its purpose, which is to keep us talking about small potatoes instead of real political issues because these all serve the republican cause. She's right, of course. I don't think the times can pull it off but they'd love to keep the focus on sideshow bullshit.

buwaya puti said...

I feel fortunate that I was able to compliment, and woo, my wife, at work, decades ago before it became impossible to do that.
I pity the kids.

Martha said...

Why can't a man be more like a woman?

and interact with woman the way a eunuch would....the NY Tmes seems to think.

Trump is a real XY testosterone fueled normal heterosexual man.

And the NY Times is horrified he acts like one.

Darcy said...

Flattery is wasted on the young.

Rick said...

I can imagine the NYT defending itself by saying that often young women do not understand the way they are being manipulated and exploited.

How will they explain not taking this position concerning Monica Lewinsky? Or since we know they will simply ignore the contradiction would it be better to ask how would an intellectually honest left wing institution respond to this question?

Bob Boyd said...

Writ Small said..."Trump described a just-met model to an assembled group as a "Trump girl." These minor, self-aggrandizing lies are so a part of who he is that we hardly notice."

I got the impression she was at Mar-A-Lago doing a photo shoot as one of a number of "Trump Girl" models and that's why she wound up at the party afterward.

DavidD said...

sane_voter said, "The left is always saying that the reality of harassment is the perception of the recipient. So if the recipient feels harassed then they were harassed, regardless of what a neutral bystander would think."

Actually, according to the left it's harassment if a third party says so, too, even if the recipient is OK with it.

Basically, anything can be harassment at any time, thanks to the left.

eric said...

Blogger Eustace Chilke said...
Tammy Bruce just said that even though this story is transparent elephant baiting it still serves its purpose, which is to keep us talking about small potatoes instead of real political issues because these all serve the republican cause. She's right, of course. I don't think the times can pull it off but they'd love to keep the focus on sideshow bullshit.


This has been over for decades and for some reason the Relink cams refuse to acknowledge it. It's all side show BS now. All of it. This is why some think Trump will win in a landslide. Sure, he has his policy proposals for the more serious people to read posted on his website. But on TV and in speeches, he doesn't drone on about them. Why would he?

Prediction: The sideshow benefits Trump more than Clinton.

Brando said...

Good ole Times. Why let journalism get in the way of pushing the Story?

SteveR said...

These poor saps at the NYTs and much of the MSM. They think they are smart but they either are clueless or incredibly transparent -- while portraying themselves as independent they are just pawns. People have lost self respect for the illusion of power.

Laslo Spatula said...

Donald Dice Trump says:

Chicks dig me, and -- me -- I'm good with that. What's not to like, right?

And you know who has a problem with that?

Chicks with problems, that's who.

Chicks who think Daddy didn't love them enough, or Daddy loved them TOO much -- Woah! Watch out for that one, people -- or chicks with no Daddy and Two Vegan Mommies with a houseful of cats and an old Volvo.

These chicks are messed up in the head, so they are going to try to pin-the-tail of their dramas on any damn donkey they can find.

And now you're saying, Donald: a donkey? Are you saying you're an ass?

Tee-Hee, assholes: Tee-fucking-Hee. I'm already ahead of you. I am ALWAYS ahead of you. That is why I am The Donald.

So I say Sure, sometimes, yeah, I'm an Ass. Sometimes you gotta be an Ass to get shit done, like when the Mafia won't deliver your cement on time: "Guido, it's me, Donald. Get your shit together or I'm putting your Lincoln Towncar in the foundation of my building, capice?"

Sometimes you got to be an Ass to get your point across. I'm the Alpha Ass, people. Deal with it.

And if I had a dollar for every troubled chick I've encountered with a Dead Mouse in her Vagina I'd buy Bill Gates and make him my bitch.

Microsoft? Really? Big and Hard, people, that's how I roll, and if you don't like it don't let my dick hit ya on the way out...

Woah!

I am Laslo.

Jim Gust said...

If anyone missed it, here's the story of Bill riding the Lolita express:

https://www.rt.com/usa/343048-clinton-epstein-lolita-express/

John said...

I don't see what is so shocking about offering a woman a bathing suit. I had a friend who kept several men's bathing suits, laundered and in a little plastic bag, for men friends who might want to take a dip but had not brought a suit. It would not surprise me if he had some for women too.

I've been in private clubs, and casinos in PR in the 80s, where jacket and tie were required. If you showed up without one, the club or had some the maitre'd would lend you for your visit.

I can absolutely see a club like Mar-A-Lago having courtesy or loaner suits for both men and women.

If that is the case, what is wrong with offering one?

John Henry

Sam L. said...

NYT got the story wrong, or twisted it out of shape so as denigrate Trump? Would they DO that? Just one more reason to distrust the NYT, not that I needed another.

Sigivald said...

It's saying the woman doesn't understand the meaning of her own experience.

If actually understanding her own experiences makes Trump look better than the alternative, obviously she's wrong!

amielalune said...

John: I agree, I and almost everyone I know who has a pool also has a supply of extra swimsuits and trunks for guests. That way, if everyone wants to go into the pool or hot tub, we're not stopped by the fact that a few guests don't have suits. It also helps protect the rest of us from those guests (and you know who you are) who don't mind skinny dipping if they feel like a swim!

Anthony said...

Trump vs. The New York Times is a lot like the Iran - Iraq war. I want both to lose and badly.

tim in vermont said...

I have not been called a hillbilly in an couple days! Trailer trash, but not hillbilly, the Democrats are off their game.

tim in vermont said...

I thought "luxury speedboat" was small ball.

Michael K said...

"often young women do not understand the way they are being manipulated and exploited. "

Especially if it is Bill and Hill manipulating them.

BillyBob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amadeus 48 said...

So yesterday at a lunch a close friend of ours (Wellesley '66) came up all aglow about this NYT piece about Trump and the women. "Did you read it all?" she asked. No, I said, but I heard they didn't turn up much (Thanks, AA). She said, you should read it all. Why? I said. Because it shows how he treats women as objects, she said. I think I knew that, I said. Is he worse than Bill Clinton getting blow jobs from a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office? I asked. She looked stricken.
She said, "He's ridiculous. He wants to build that wall." I said, "Yeah, that's not very practical. What do you think our immigration policy should be?" Silence. I said, "So do you think the rule should be that if you get here, you can stay here with full benefits, regardless of how you got here." Silence. Her husband said, "Boy, the cost of our lawn service will go up if they ever close that border." I said, "So you think the policy should be that we import poverty from Mexico?" Silence.
Maybe your friends have fully formed thoughts on Trump, Clinton, women, and immigration, but mine don't.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I think the story that the New York Times started out to write just wasn't borne out by the facts they turned up.

The incident with Rowanne Brewer Lane is told accurately, but there's a point of view that doesn't make her look good. If you read it carefully, or read it over you can see there's nothing there - he made an approach to her, and she didn't mind. A woman he barely knew - well, of course. The first time aman talks to awoman it's always a woman he barely knows. I think.

tim in vermont said...

This is where the Ivy League is letting the elite down. If they can't think one move ahead because they've been taught what to think not how to think, their position is doomed.

tim in vermont said...

. Her husband said, "Boy, the cost of our lawn service will go up if they ever close that border."

I can't imagine all those losers who used to make a living doing lawn work would get mad enough to vote for Trump just because people are bringing in Mexican scabs to do the work cheaper.

After all, what is a scab but somebody willing to do the work others won't do for the money on offer.

tim in vermont said...

Democrats seem congenitally incapable of seeing the harm that their immigration policy is doing to the low skill end of the working class. Democrats used to care about these people. Not any more. And the GOPe, people like Chuck, abandoned them too.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary Clinton Unnerved Rape Victim by Laughing About Her Rape - Frontpage Magazine

They can't even see this stuff coming, but even Hillary knew that "the problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers" where you can go to kill a story. A gatekeeper for the internet would sure help her candidacy, that's for sure.

Paul said...

" the right isn't going to forgive and forget never Trump people who try and smear a man using lefty tactics."

I've said it before and I'll say it again. They use the same tactics because they are the same personality types, rigid ideologues whose self righteous egotism is the defining feature of their person. In one culture they are leftwing moonbats, in another anti-Trump "conservatives", and in a other Jihadists. They all have a common thread...The need to be always right, the need to force people to agree with them, and a lust for power to achieve this. They are totalitarians, and they are the enemies of free men.

Bay Area Guy said...

#NewYorkTimesFail

If they're gonna scrutinize Trump like an exacting proctologist, shouldn't they do the same with Hillary and Bill and Huma and Anthony?

tim in vermont said...

If Cruz had won, I would be looking for his good points. Never Hillary

Bay Area Guy said...

#NewYorkTimesFail

If they're gonna scrutinize Trump like an exacting proctologist, shouldn't they do the same with Hillary and Bill and Huma and Anthony?

Rhythm and Balls said...

NYT distorts all political stories.

Todd Galle said...

Tim in VT -
Exactly. I helped my family during the 1980s recession by cutting grass. Also put myself through a private 4 year acceptable central PA college with the left over funds. That ability kept our family in our house and put food on the table, for quite a while. Now I cut grass 7 days a week (and prayed for rain for a day off), but we made it.

Todd Galle said...

Oh poo, replace "Now" with then please.

Iapetus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bart said...

Todd,

There is nothing wrong with cutting the grass now. It still pays the bills for some of us.

Chuck said...

As a card-carrying Trump Hater, this was a big pile of nothing story. The subjects of the story were unimpressive. The Times, as always, has been unimpressive. The story has so little traction and such dull impact. There is plenty of evidence upon which women might judge Donald Trump (three wives, confessed serial adultery) with suspicion, irrespective of the Times phony scolding. The Times, dutifully serving its audience of urban liberals who want nothing to do with most Republicans and especially nothing to do with the rube Trump.

I cannot fathom Professor Althouse's apparent interest in this manufactured story, as compared to the freakishly weird Trump-as-John Miller story.

tim in vermont said...

Trump as John Miller was a hilarious prank. He was a private citizen. I know you have a problem with humor, like that Sheldon character on Big Bang Theory, but it was hysterical. The only way to get some kind of bad story out of that is to go into it with assumptions about Trump. But then everything proves your point because you have already assumed what you were trying to prove in the first place, right?

Todd said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
NYT distorts all political stories.

5/16/16, 6:46 PM


NYT distorts all stories.

There, fixed it for you. You are welcome...