At an NBC News town hall Wednesday, NBC News President Noah Oppenheim said: “The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us. We were on that long list of places that chased this thing, tried to nail it, but weren’t ultimately the ones who broke it.”
Then he struck a rueful tone, suggesting that the NBC iteration of the story had died of natural causes. “We reached a point over the summer where we, as an organization, didn’t feel that we had all the elements that we needed to air,” he said.
Yet interviews with 12 people inside and outside NBC News with direct knowledge of the reporting behind Farrow’s story suggest a different cause of death. All of the sources who spoke to HuffPost asked not to be named, either because they weren’t authorized to speak to the media about the story or because they were fearful of retribution from NBC News executives. These sources detailed a months-long struggle within NBC News during which Oppenheim and other executives slow-walked Farrow’s story, crippling it with their qualms and irresolution....
१२ ऑक्टोबर, २०१७
"How Top NBC Executives Quashed The Bombshell Harvey Weinstein Story."
From HuffPo:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११० टिप्पण्या:
The New York Times comes out of this with their brand greatly burnished.
Now I Know! said...
The New York Times comes out of this with their brand greatly burnished."
Uh, huh. After they spiked it back in 2004? How many more women has the Perv victimized since then?
I believe the NYT continues in the Walter Duranty tradition.
If misguided and politicized support for Bill Clinton is responsible for giving cover to sexual harassment, I propose that misguided and politicized support for Donald Trump and his "fake news" media wars is responsible for media organizations being too afraid to get something wrong, thus, in this case with NBC, giving a few more months of cover to sexual harassment...
I get now that Now I Know finally realizes this story isn't going away no matter how many times the troll complains and tallies up Althouse blog posts about it. The tactic now is to desperately spin this to make the liberal media and Democrats look good - but that's not gonna fly.
This story has been ignored for years by the NY Times and everyone else, although it was an open secret in Hollywood.
Snark, they sat on this story for years. And it would have never been reported on at all if Hillary had won.
Blaming Trump for the long established misdeeds of a prominent Democrat donor is not only vile but dishonest. It is to be expected from you, however.
Actually, it is all but certain that the NYTimes story was planted by Weinstein, his brother, and/or the board of the company when it became clear that Farrow's story was going to be printed by The New Yorker.
Compare the two stories if you don't believe me- the NYTimes story has all the tame details you might release in an attempt to undercut the later release of far more damaging ones. In fact, I thought initially that Farrow got scooped by someone working on the same story, but when I read Farrow's actual report, it was clear what had actually happened- someone wanted to turn Farrow's work into "old news". It didn't work, so, no, The NYTimes doesn't come out better- they were probably whoring themselves to, at the very least, Weinstein's board.
The New York Times broke the story. Why didn't Fox or some other conservative news media get the story out there? If it was such an "open secret" then it should have been easy for them to have done so.
As I and others have said, Weinstein knows worse things about them than they know about him.
And there's a word that's been missing in every story I've read about the Weinstein saga. The word is "cocaine."
It would certainly go against type if a sleazeball Hollywood pig-mogul inviting starlets into his hotel room wasn't tooted up to the max and that he didn't have lines of Scarface-quality powder laid out for the young ladies to enjoy before he made his move.
Yet, not a word.
Maybe I've seen too many Miramax films.
The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us
I don't know which option I find more repugnant: 1) that this clown is lying to our faces like a MF or 2) he actually sincerely believes what he's saying.
"This story has been ignored for years by the NY Times and everyone else"
Everyone in the MSM sat on it for years. Thousands of people, dozens of organizations, entertainment companies, mega-millionaire "creatives", agents, contractors, accountants, lawyers, you name it. Plus any number of people who one sees in award shows and on red carpets. The lot.
HOW is trivial compared to WHY.
Well, if Fox News or the Wall Street Journal broke the story then they would have had a big scoop that dominated the news cycle for several days. Do those news outlets lack the resources to do this kind of investigative journalism? I think not. This was a "shoe leather" story. But all of conservative media missed it. It was the New York Times that did the work and got it out there first.
It was the New York Times that did the work and got it out there first.
Typical mendacity. The New York Time suppressed the Weinstein story for 13 years.
Yancey Ward is on to something there. I am wondering if this whole thing is the revenge of Mia Farrow. She tried to bring down Woody Allen after his betrayal but failed. They say Harvey Weinstein was instrumental in helping save Woody's career after that whole Sun Yi debacle. Mia Farrow grew up in Hollywood. She probably knows all the ins and outs of the depravity. Wouldn't be so hard for her son to get the dirt. Imagine what it must have been like to be in New York City and Hollywood society circles listening to them get indignant about Trump and his pussy grabbing comments when you not only know what goes on behind closed doors, but had it happen to your daughter. It could have been the last straw. If she is behind it, kudos to her.
"It was the New York Times that did the work and got it out there first."
They didn't "do the work." As Yancey said, it was planted. (Do you think all those liberal Hollywood women would have spilled their guts to Fox or National Review? What a stupid thought.)
Quaestor is correct - the question is why now, after all these years?
Just "knowing" a story's true is not enough to go to print. I can understand reluctance. The Weinstein stain seemed a lot more than reluctance, though.
"Do those news outlets lack the resources to do this kind of investigative journalism?"
Yes they do lack these resources - Fox, anyway, one of its big defects, it is more show than substance. WSJ is part of the MSM save for its editorial content. Which is not up to investigative journalism. That part of journalism takes resources and salaries, and is the last part of the industry that can't be taken over by the web because it requires $.
The NYT was prompted by the upcoming New Yorker piece. But this thing could easily have been written anytime in the last 20 years. By the NYT in 2004 for instance.
The only reason it wasn't was systemic corruption.
When you read the NYTimes story, it is abundantly clear that it is the highly sanitized version of Farrow's work- it literally reads like damage control to all but those with IQs under 85. So, no, they didn't break the story- not the real one- Farrow did that all on his own. You should notice that nearly all the important details of the NYTimes story had to have come from someone high up in the company itself- almost all of Farrow's evidence comes from people outside the company who crossed paths with Weinstein, especially the more sordid parts of it. The NYTimes whored themselves out for damage control- it isn't working, but that is why they moved on the story after sitting on it previously- the source for it was Weinstein's company, so they no longer had to bury it.
"Quaestor is correct - the question is why now, after all these years?"
My first question from the beginning. Who benefits from this.
Well, if Fox News or the Wall Street Journal broke the story then they would have had a big scoop that dominated the news cycle for several days
And the story would have faced a tsunami of denials from all those folks who are Speaking Out now. Not to mention lawsuits.
NY Times does look better by publishing it, better late than never. I do believe the New Yorker was the cause of the New York Times publishing the story. The theory to make it old news may be partially true, another is to help their reputation.
Since Hollywood is so SJW, I don't think Fox or WSJ could have broken the story. For the WSJ, scandal is not their focus. Fox, I don't see as doing original investigative reporting, more of entertainment and commentary that is not to the Left.
Interesting, reminds me of what happened with Bill Clinton:
Harvey Weinstein and the silence of the civil rights group
And on a related note, Podesta has a lot of disturbing sculptures and pictures at his residence. Is this newsworthy? I have not seen anything in the regular press about this?
Now I Know! said...
The New York Times broke the story. Why didn't Fox or some other conservative news media get the story out there? If it was such an "open secret" then it should have been easy for them to have done so.
This is why Hollywood, or any of the other leftist cabals, run conservatives out when they find out about them. They know leftists are inherently corrupt and will cover up abuses.
It has been awesome watching all those leftist women who whined about a Trump tape were silent about actual rape and abuse. Kinda like you pretending you have a soul.
Kudos to David Remnick and the New Yorker as well!
"is responsible for media organizations being too afraid to get something wrong"
Just when I think the left can't get any more dishonest and delusional, along comes this hot take:
The media is scared because of Trump.
Easily the stupidest thing I'm going to read all day.
Sydney,
It really isn't me- Lee Smith in Weekly Standard, though, put it all together so that it answered my question as to why the NYTimes moved finally to write about it.
When I first read the NYTimes story, I really did think Farrow had gotten scooped, but when Farrow's actual article appeared, the two stories are in no way comparable to each other. You see that even today with the NYTimes new information about what the board knew- it is almost 100% certain that the main source for The NYTimes reporters is the board of Weinstein's company. When it became clear that Farrow's story was going to be published, they decided to try to get out in front of it as much as possible in an attempt to turn it into old news by the time Farrow's piece hit.
Smith finally put it all into context by pointing out the relationship between Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein. In addition, Smith pointed out the advantage that Ronan Farrow would have in approaching Weinstein's victims.
I think what The NYTimes did is actually only a little less unethical than covering this up for 13 years. The motivation to publish tarnishes them even more.
Ronan Farrow seems to have been the one behind getting this story published. Perhaps because of his stature, with who his Father was and associated scandals, he was the only one able to push the story through?
Or he got lucky and was at the right place and time to get the story published?
Snark said...
If misguided and politicized support for Bill Clinton is responsible for giving cover to sexual harassment, I propose that misguided and politicized support for Donald Trump and his "fake news" media wars is responsible for media organizations being too afraid to get something wrong, thus, in this case with NBC, giving a few more months of cover to sexual harassment...
That is just really stupid.
The kudos for the publication goes to the following people in order of importance- (1) Ronan Farrow, (2)David Remnick and the owners of The New Yorker. In my opinion, no one at The NYTimes really deserves kudos- they were The Weinstein Company's whores at the very best.
Now I Know, your 180 on this is pretty transparent. You've gone from pissing and whining about the coverage to praising liberals for finally reporting on a fat old perverted liberal shitbag who was tolerated for years because he gave lots of money to Democrats. Anything to cover up the corruption and the cold hearted callousness of all those media and Hollywood people who have damned Trump for words while turning a blind eye to a real culture of rape.
.
Team Democrat, Team Hollywood, Team NBC -- closing ranks, protecting their own.
Harvey Weinstein raped Hollywood actresses
Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaderick
Harvey donates millions to Clinton and the DNC, and bundles millions for Obama.
Obama sends daughter Malia to intern with Harvey.
Harvey has unlawful carnal knowledge with a potted plant.
The media stands silent -- gotta support the team.
That's how they roll.
Absolute lies from NBC. Do these clowns understand how the ungated new-media works? The days of gated narratives are over. Weinstein's behavior was, in fact, openly joked about in an episode of the NBC sitcom '30 Rock' about five years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4960838/30-Rock-joke-alluded-Harvey-Weinstein-allegations.html
"My first question from the beginning. Who benefits from this." Now wait a minute, with all due respect, yours truly, in all the time he saved by not watching movies or football, asked and answered that question on this very blog. Female POC. Beginning of house-cleaning by non-Clintonite Dems, prepping the battle space by tempting women to come home to the Party.
Of course, Oprah and Michelle will have to claim they knew nothing, nothing.
Bay Area Guy said...
Team Democrat, Team Hollywood, Team NBC -- closing ranks, protecting their own."
Now that actresses, including A-listers - are lining up to tell their tales of How Harvey Groped/Raped/Exposed Himself to Me, the media will have a harder time making this one go away.
Now I Know! said...
"Kudos to David Remnick and the New Yorker as well!"
Yes, all your Lefty friends come out of this looking really good. They all deserve big, floppy, pink Pussy Hats, with sagging labia clusters.
It's not actually a bombshell but the mob likes it.
Cui Bono on why Now I Know wanted Ann to stop writing about Weinstein immediately?
Is Now I Know based out of Brooklyn (Former Clinton command) or the Upper West Side of Manhattan (Blue Party/Media Home)?
Is Now I Know living past the 405 in LA? Then she is protecting HW directly.
Or is Now I Know from a troll farm based out of MD/DC for the DNC?
An empty avatar and bio needs investigation.....
That's some serious motivated reasoning Snark, but I will take you at your word, are you ready to call out Hillary on her mind-blowing hypocrisy yet?
Hillary was married to a rapist (Bill), her campaign was partially funded by a rapist (Harvey), and her right hand gal (Huma) was married to a sexting felon (Weiner).
Hillary runs with a rough crowd.
What Happened?
"The New York Times comes out of this with their brand greatly burnished."
No, only Ronan Farrow and The New Yorker come out that way.
Farrow deserves huge accolades for his work on this, a Pulitzer Prize perhaps.
Tim Groseclose, a UCLA professor, published a fascinating book a few years ago on the study of political bias in journalism.
One of his conclusions was that the journalism side (non-editorial) of the WSJ was to the left of the NYT.
Another was that the average American is basically Kansan in political viewpoints.
Points worth considering. The book is not polemical.
Now I Know! said...
The New York Times comes out of this with their brand greatly burnished.
10/12/17, 3:17 PM
What a pig you are, what an exploiter of women, to use Althouse's coverage and her very blog to promote your own ideas, ideas that, if disseminated by your own efforts through your own website, would soon have their funerals held in a phone booth. Yes, women have been abused, ravaged, perhaps driven to suicide, but the NYT is burnished, my man, BURNISHED!
Or is Now I Know from a troll farm based out of MD/DC for the DNC?
An empty avatar and bio needs investigation.....
10/12/17, 4:23 PM
Hey....the RUSSIANS could have sent him! The theoretical possibility warrants unlimited intrusion and spare no expense.
First the trolls are forced to throw Hillary under the bus or sacrifice all credibility, who will be next?
Here's what NBC News doesn't get. When we tune in to their shows we expect to see, ya know, news. Not crap. Not pablum. News. It's part of their name; they should try it sometime.
If Huma would have simply slept with Weiner; and
If Bill would have simply slept with Hillary; and
If the Potted Plant had simply accepted Harvey's entreaties.
We wouldn't be in this position!
The NYT and The New Yorker get kudos, not halos.
If the WSJ had printed this story, it would have been ignored.
The NYT waddled in twelve years late. They had the story in 2005, but pulled the plug on their own reporter after Harvey visited their newsroom and Matt Damon dialed them up (Damon denies he did this).
Ronan Farrow deserves all the praise he gets on this one, but even he may be on a personal vendetta for Harvey Weinstein's rescue of Woody Allen (who may or may not be Ronan's biological father) after Ronan's mother tried to take Woody out for shenanigans involving Ronan's real and adopted sisters.
I can't believe I wrote that last sentence.
The NYT story was the sanitized version. I don't think it was designed to make Farrow's article old news. Since the NYT went first, the emphasis is Weinstein was a dirty old man and made women uncomfortable and put ugly women at a disadvantage.
If the Farrow article went first, the narrative would have been WEINSTEIN RAPED AT LEAST THREE WOMEN!
Achilles said...
Snark said...
If misguided and politicized support for Bill Clinton is responsible for giving cover to sexual harassment, I propose that misguided and politicized support for Donald Trump and his "fake news" media wars is responsible for media organizations being too afraid to get something wrong, thus, in this case with NBC, giving a few more months of cover to sexual harassment...
That is just really stupid.
Unintelligible, in fact.
Now I Know! said...
The New York Times broke the story. Why didn't Fox or some other conservative news media get the story out there? If it was such an "open secret" then it should have been easy for them to have done so.
Now I Know! has done sterling work during Althouse's recent spasm of monomania. Definitely made the blog more readable.
"Desperate" is the word you are looking for, BL
I just read the entire HuffPo piece, and, speaking frankly, it makes NBC look terrible.
They slow-walked the story as long as they could, and then they ignored it. Particularly in light of their willingness to publish any speculative thing about the Trump White House with the slightest sourcing and zero named attribution (a trait they share with most other mainstream news media), someone would have to be really stupid to believe their lame excuses.
More idiots self-identify.
Next, Amazon/Bezos:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4975366/Rose-McGowan-lashes-Jeff-Bezos-says-HW-raped-her.html
But personally I want to see Streep hung out to dry, after her savage Emmy rant, and now lying that she knew nothing.
"My first question from the beginning. Who benefits from this."
The Golden Rule, once again. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Ronan Farrow did the work. He had the connections and like the Defarges in a Tale of Two Cities, he came from a family with a motivation. And the reason he was published now is that the Democrats are divided - the Bernie Sanders people v. the Clinton people. That leaves an opening for truth. I thought the Sanders people just accepted being trashed by the Clintons and their allies in the primaries. But - Debbie Wasserman Schultz is going down in the Imran Awan scandal and now Hillary (through her association with Bill who is like Weinstein) now she is getting dragged down. So I suppose it could be the Russians or it could be Trump. But I'm going with the commenters who propose that the Bernie Bros are seeking revenge for 2016 and a place in the sun in 2018.
A second Amazon story:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amazon-tv-producer-goes-public-harassment-claim-top-exec-roy-price-1048060
It could be outing executives will be the big trend. We can keep score, left versus right.
Maybe "Now I Know" is our hostess' very own assigned Macedonian Content Farmer. Furiously toiling away in a cute little Macedonian Content Hut far away from the madding crowd.
The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us
What a bunch o' hooey.
An even bigger story that is being overshadowed is the terrible scandal at West Point, which looks like the worst of the liberal arts colleges except it is the source of US Army officers.
First and foremost, standards at West Point are nonexistent. They exist on paper, but nowhere else. The senior administration at West Point inexplicably refuses to enforce West Point’s publicly touted high standards on cadets, and, having picked up on this, cadets refuse to enforce standards on each other. The Superintendent refuses to enforce admissions standards or the cadet Honor Code, the Dean refuses to enforce academic standards, and the Commandant refuses to enforce standards of conduct and discipline. The end result is a sort of malaise that pervades the entire institution. Nothing matters anymore. Cadets know this, and it has given rise to a level of cadet arrogance and entitlement the likes of which West Point has never seen in its history.
Every fall, the Superintendent addresses the staff and faculty and lies. He repeatedly states that “We are going to have winning sports teams without compromising our standards,” and everyone in Robinson Auditorium knows he is lying because we routinely admit athletes with ACT scores in the mid-teens across the board. I have personally taught cadets who are borderline illiterate and cannot read simple passages from the assigned textbooks. It is disheartening when the institution’s most senior leader openly lies to his own faculty-and they all know it.
This is far more important than Weinstein but it will not be covered by the media.
Nobody is denying credit to the New York Times and New Yorker -- these are explosive stories. Well researched, well substantiated.
Good reporting.
The one criticism is, well, they were a little slow. But, better late than never.
BTW, Althouse, you might-could get a link system for people who want to link to Amazon items on your blog. Something like [buy via Althouse\here it is on Amazon].
I'm using shorthand here, of course, partly because the Interweb makes it difficult to describe.
It's probably an easy thing to do, and if I weren't so lazy, I'd post a way to do it. But when you write on an interesting subject and a few people might buy an item or two based on your writing, you should get something for it.
Amazon may well already have an automated system for that. I kinda doubt it, though. Amazon and Google don't like each other. Who would out-source that commission to a competitor?
Now I Know! has done sterling work during Althouse's recent spasm of monomania. Definitely made the blog more readable.
Such sterling work as to be compelled to apologize to our hostess for being mistaken. Evidently Althouse's monomania is not the approved Trump-Hatred monomania.
"Now I Know! has done sterling work during Althouse's recent spasm of monomania. Definitely made the blog more readable"
Well she's certainly a reliable of Donk panic regarding this. Shame Althouse had to punk her.
NBC spiked the story after getting threatened by Harvey Weinstein's lawyers, that's a bombshell. But it's still just Hillary Clinton and Meryl Streep who get the cowardice tag from Althouse.
Comcast owns NBC and its stock was down 3.93% today, a loss of around $7 billion in market value for its shareholders. Another probable factor in that drop was Trump's threat to pull broadcast licenses. That would be ironic, if Trump used the spiking of the Weinstein story to take NBC off the air.
It strikes me that the big name law firms Harvey used are vulnerable to some backlash too. All it would take is a few students at Harvard Law School to start wondering out loud if Sullivan & Cromwell or Boies, Schiller & Flexner should be allowed to recruit on the Harvard campus.
Huh... NBC had a tape provided by the NYPD of Weinstein admitting to groping a woman that had filed a criminal complaint about said groping. But even the NY DA said that wasn't enough to prosecute for criminal intent, so I guess I understand NBC not airing the story.
After all, NBC sat on the tape of Trump saying he like to kiss woman and grab their pussy. I'm not exactly sure why it became a news worthy story later all by itself, particularly since the woman it was implied he groped and kissed said she neither groped nor kissed. But it was a story, and it was aired. I guess it was good information to know. "Trump likes foreplay when he can get it! News at 11!" Glad to know. ;)
Now, about that story NBC recently ran that suggested Trump wanted to increase the US weapons arsenal. What were the sufficient elements to air that story?
ARM:
Hilarious, but the bit you quoted by from Now I Know (Nufink!) was devastated repeatedly already on this thread, by Bill at 4:48pm, by Exiled at 4:06, and best of all, by tcrosse... If the story had been broken by Fox or the WSJ editorial board (lol):
And the story would have faced a tsunami of denials from all those folks who are Speaking Out now. Not to mention lawsuits.
You f'in know it's true. Because repulsive progs like NIKN and you think you somehow wield this magical power that makes you unable to be considered guilty of anything until *you* admit what you did. If a Deplorable points the finger, then it *has* to be a lie. That's the prog story now. Every. Single. Time. For years, actually... decades? Since Joe McCarthy, who was right about virtually everything, and whose supposed sins leftists have turned into standard operating procedure except cranked up to 11 in virtually every industry and charity? Yeah, pretty much.
And even having a leftist admit to a crime by other leftists isn't enough anymore. See Lois Lerner. The entire IRS scandal started by Lois Lerner giving a press conference admitting to far less than it's now blatantly obvious she actually participated in, and then later denying she or the IRS did anything wrong whatsoever. While pleading the Fifth. Which actually IS an admission of guilt. Or was. People serving the progressive cause get dispensation on that now too. And the media played along with the "old news" narrative upon every additional explosive finding of fact.
The NY Times deserves no credit. They were running cover in the same way (on someone's orders, I'm agnostic on if it was the company board) just trying to get ahead of the New Yorker article, which as was correctly pointed out displaced the "HW raped at least three women" narrative had the New Yorker article come out first. Again - if the real story about the IRS targeting conservatives had come out before Lois Lerner made her initial confession, heads WOULD have rolled. But the "get ahead of the story with weaksauce version" play will usually give you guys enough time for the eventual "not a smidgeon of corruption" lie. Maybe not this time though.
ARM wrote:
Now I Know! has done sterling work during Althouse's recent spasm of monomania. Definitely made the blog more readable.
Yes, of course, you would think so. Of course.
If Bernie Madoff, at his own company, had tried such shit with the girls in accounting, he would have been arrested by his third encounter, if not sooner. The big scandal is how Weinstein was not only able to survive but to thrive and prosper in the Hollywood culture over so many years. NBC is part of that culture.......I hope Ronan wins a Pulitzer and that he becomes the go-to guy for people--men, women men, and especially children--who have a story that they would like to get out. My spidey sense tells me that Weinstein isn't the only such offender in Hollywood, although one would like to believe that he's the worst.
There's no way Trump is worse or even in the same class as Harvey Weinstein. You can maybe argue that Trump is worse than Gary Hart or John Edwards, but it's just not credible to compare him to Weinstein.
I can't blame any of the women who were abused by HW, and didn't say anything, afterall, look at the women who were exposed to the allegations of, or exposed by actual abuse by BJ Clinton, and what happened to them. That should be the next story of why this went on so long. BJ, and his bitch wife set the parameters of what was expected to happen to women who made a scene of the abuse. Shameful.
Anyone who has ever caught a shoplifter in the act is familiar with the kinds of impassioned denials coming out of NBC.
Oh, and I recall ARM just loved, loved, loved the Milo scandal, couldn't get enough of it, kept bringing it up in threads that had nothing to do with it. ARM rolled around in that story like a pig in shit. Now, let's compare Milo with far more famous and vastly more powerful and wealthy liberal Harvey Weinstein.
Milo said in an interview that he had been seduced by a priest when he was 13 and had enjoyed the experience. He said that while he did not think the age of consent should be lowered, he also did not think it was necessarily always harmful for adolescent boys. That was what he got pilloried for (and since I think it is bad to promote the idea that adolescent-adult sex is a positive thing, I think it right that Milo was harshly criticized for saying that).
But - he never said he was attracted to adolescents or had sex with minors when he became an adult. Not one young man has come forth saying Milo had sex with him when he was still a minor.
Milo is a self-aggrandizing showoff, but there is no proof that he is what ARM repeatedly insisted he is - a pedophile. ARM knowingly posted a lie over and over again, knowing it to be a lie.
Now we have Harvey, a Democrat Party darling, and oops, hell's bells, it looks like he really is a rapist, a pedophile, an exhibitionist - and his victims number in the hundreds.
ARM doesn't like this story. This story is no good. He wants this story to go away.
I have a great idea for a photo spread. How about picture after picture after picture of Hollywood big deals snuggling up to creepy, smirking Harvey Weinstein? We've already seen Meryl, Hillary, Ben, Matt, Gwyneth, Jennifer, and Renee but I bet there are hundreds more. So icky. So pervasive.
Thank you Reasonable Man.
I hope Althouse's conservative readers will now stop buying from Amazon given their role in covering up the evil misdeeds of this Weinstein guy. Maybe Ann will get a new portal to a different online retailer? How about L.L. Bean?
It looks like the babies have returned to haunt their persecutors.
Social justice can get millions aborted, but karmic justice can right the scales, eventually.
Ok so apparently TMZ is reporting (i know i know) that Harvey's contract provided that as long as he reimbursed the company for any sexual harassment judgments or settlements, and paid a fine to the company, he couldn't be fired for code of conduct violations. And it claims the contract went so far as to spell out the fine would be $250k for the first offence, $500k for the second, $750k for the thrid and $1,000,000 for the fourth...
How many were they expecting?
What kind of people agree to let the co-chair have that kind of a get out of jail free card?
Blogger Now I Know! said...
"I hope Althouse's conservative readers will now stop buying from Amazon given their role in covering up the evil misdeeds of this Weinstein guy."
I long ago stopped buying from Amazon, when I realized how evil Jeff Bezos is.
"Harvey's contract provided that as long as he reimbursed the company for any sexual harassment judgments or settlements, and paid a fine to the company, he couldn't be fired for code of conduct violations. And it claims the contract went so far as to spell out the fine would be $250k for the first offence, $500k for the second, $750k for the thrid and $1,000,000 for the fourth..."
The phrase "knew or should have know" is tingling in my brain pan.
Let the lawsuits begin.
Just wait until ARM and NIK transition to characterizing the NYT as HEROIC in publishing this story in the face of murderous right wing opposition!
All of the sources who spoke to HuffPost asked not to be named, either because they weren’t authorized to speak to the media about the story or because they were fearful of retribution from NBC News executives.
This is why these situations are allowed to continue. With people being called heroes for exposing Harvey, most people are still afraid of retribution for telling the truth about higher ups.
Now I Know! said...
I hope Althouse's conservative readers will now stop buying from Amazon given their role in covering up the evil misdeeds of this Weinstein guy.
Another strong point. The hits just keep coming. Althousians will clearly be complicit in Weinstein's guilt if they continue to buy from Amazon. I think this is now well understood. It's Walmart for me from here on out.
Who would have thunk it that Frank's kid would have exposed the Nothing But Crap network?
"How Top NBC Executives Quashed The Bombshell Harvey Weinstein Story."
"Quashed" sounds like something Harvey Weinstein had an ingenue do with a loofa while watching him shower.
Prediction: Ronan Farrow will not win a Pulitzer. He made his higher-ups look bad, and Harvey Weinstein, despicable though he may be, still has friends.
In retrospect, it's becoming obvious that the MSM has smothered many corruption stories because of cronyist partisanism, ironically, blockbuster stories that would have earned them a bigger audience, more clicks, and a reburnished reputation.
It would be difficult to identify a better example of Fens Law regarding systemic sexual attacks on children, women and even men than the comments offered on this thread by ARM and NIK.
The old playbook of the left is no longer effective and they are simply incapable of adapting.
There is a reason the republicans in DC can be this ineffective yet the republican party is at it's strongest national position in 90 years.
The left is simply that much worse.
"Harvey's contract provided that as long as he reimbursed the company for any sexual harassment judgments or settlements, and paid a fine to the company, he couldn't be fired for code of conduct violations. And it claims the contract went so far as to spell out the fine would be $250k for the first offence, $500k for the second, $750k for the third and $1,000,000 for the fourth..."
Not good enough. There must be a $50 fine for any and all knowingly unlawful carnal acts with a potted plant. H Rodgin Cohen Esquire would demand nothing less.
William said
The big scandal is how Weinstein was not only able to survive but to thrive and prosper in the Hollywood culture over so many years.
The more I think about this, the more I can’t fathom how one man managed to, with his legal team, arrange for EIGHT settlements/NDAs.
8! How the F do the people around this guy not perform an intervention. These are other people being horribly violated or victimized, allegedly. With that number, the “allegedly” is just a formality.
8!
Now I Know needs to e-mail ARM and let him know the talking points have changed. It's not "right wing obsession, nothing to see here," it's "look at the heroic and inspiring performance of the MSM!"
As for starving Jeff Bezos of coin, I don't think many of Ann's regulars will object to that ARM. Glad you're on board!
As a reminder, ARM is a moderate/centrist. Just ask him.
♬ Mothers! Don't let your daughters grow up to date guys known as "Harvey..." ♬
But - he never said he was attracted to adolescents or had sex with minors when he became an adult. Not one young man has come forth saying Milo had sex with him when he was still a minor.
Well! Apparently those upright goody two-shoes social conservatives who drummed him out of your/their "movement" are just a little too finicky for YOUR priorities!
Blame the liberals! Blame them for everything! Blame them for North Korea! Blame them for Muhammad's marriage to young Aisha! Blame them blame them blame them!
Blame them for blowing up the Death Star!
Or Alderan.
Or whatever.
I think the worst thing about Sir Harvey that made him so icky with these rapey rapey shenanigans was how absolutely whiney this stubbled whale shark of a mole rat could be. In the tape he was practically pleading with her at every turn. Chicks will date a physically repulsive guy. (Maybe not actresses, but some attractive woman will). But not if he fuckin' persistently WHINES for SEX with her it's like the second kiss of death.
What a dumb turd. He knows everything about making a good movie but nuthin' about how to be smooth enough for even him to attract a lover. Seriously, any guy rich or ugly enough can make it happen, somehow. And if not there are always strippers and amateur porno cam models (while they're still young and impoverished and lusting for fame and haven't yet picked up too many strains of HSV/HPV).
What a dumbass. And yeah, I guess a rapist.
What's wrong with cornering someone and forcing them to watch you masturbate in front of them?
Um, pretty much everything I can think of.
Harvey did in person what even Bill O'Reilly only did on the phone.
And I thought Bill O'Reilly was gross. Harvey took that slick move even one step further.
What the hell possesses these guys? Don't they have ANY experience with women (or even just people) in real life?
SMH.
In ancient Rome hookers and actors were considered as part of the same social stratum.
No word on which rung of the ladder producers occupied.
AReasonableMan said...
Now I Know! said...
"I hope Althouse's conservative readers will now stop buying from Amazon given their role in covering up the evil misdeeds of this Weinstein guy. "
Another strong point. The hits just keep coming. Althousians will clearly be complicit in Weinstein's guilt if they continue to buy from Amazon. I think this is now well understood. It's Walmart for me from here on out.
What about this story turns leftists into complete idiots?
Both of these posts are just really stupid.
I lurk here just to gawk in wonder at the sheer ineffectual nature and complete leftist hackery that folks like ARM, NIK, and TTR engage in on a regular basis. On this thread, ARM and NIK did not disappoint. TTR on the other hand was mostly making sense. Even admitted that HW was worse than Bill O. That's practically a giant leap for a rank partisan like TTR.
I hope he didn't hurt himself when he landed. Can't afford to lose many more IQ points to TBI.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Well! Apparently those upright goody two-shoes social conservatives who drummed him out of your/their "movement" are just a little too finicky for YOUR priorities!
There is an ongoing battle against the GOPe/NRO crowd. We are going to crush them in 2018.
Blame the liberals! Blame them for everything! Blame them for North Korea! Blame them for Muhammad's marriage to young Aisha! Blame them blame them blame them!
Pretty much the entire DC establishment. They are not liberals. I am a liberal. They are crony statists and they are most of both parties. But there will be a lot fewer GOPers soon.
Trump will have a much better group to work with in 2019. I hope tax reform waits until then.
NBC is a lying sack of shit. They had everything they needed to put the story on the air--multiple victims willing to appear on-camera and tell their story without their identities being concealed. That is as good as it gets in the news business. But NBC's lawyers didn't like the optics. They had the Bill Cosby rapes and molestations hanging around their necks like a flock of albatrosses. And they did everything in their power to spike that story and protect their estimated $1 billion Cosby-asset--including sending out NBC fixers to bully victims and witnesses. That is, in fact, how the current round of Cosby accusations got traction. A known NBC fixer came forward and said that NBC knew the woman's story was true and sent him out anyway to bully her into submission without giving her a cent. The fixer knew names of witnesses and details of evidence, that gave reporters a path to follow. NBC put a dollar estimate on their Weinstein connection and the potential Cosby losses and made a decision based on financial considerations only.
"Blaming Trump for the long established misdeeds of a prominent Democrat donor is not only vile but dishonest. It is to be expected from you, however."
"Blaming Trump" is not the argument. Willfilly blind, partisan and politically motivated support for self-serving campaigns like Trump's war on the media has consequences, and can make its targets tentative and over cautious. That's the argument. I'm sure there are other factors of course, but it's foolish to think Trump's constant abusive refrains don't have any impact on the decisions of media organizations.
And, Ronan Farrow really does look like Frank Sinatra.
I think Ronan Farrow looks a lot like Mia. Mia and Frank looked alike too.
We get it Snark, it's even Trump's fault that Bill Clinton raped Broaddrick. Everything is Trump's fault, including all of the covering for HW that happened before Trump even ran!
None of us had any idea that the owner of the WaPo was a Clinton shill and general creep until our trolls let us know on this very thread! My goodness!
>What kind of people agree to let the co-chair have that kind of a get out of jail free card?
Looks awful, yes. But a possible answer might be someone who suspects the co-chair might get nailed on an accusation that had no merit.
Doesn't apply to Weinstein obviously.
Snark: "
"Blaming Trump" is not the argument. Willfilly blind, partisan and politically motivated support for self-serving campaigns like Trump's war on the media has consequences..."
LOL
Note how seamlessly Snark moves from "War on Women", a tactic used by those conducting an actual war on women (lefties), to "War on Media", a tactic actually pursued by the lefties against conservative media outlets and now being used as a rhetorical weapon to be used against Trump.
Has Trump actually done anything via government/regulation mechanisms to attack lefty media?
The short answer is indeed very short: "no".
Next up for Snark, how republicans are responsible for Weinstein.
Snark: "I'm sure there are other factors of course, but it's foolish to think Trump's constant abusive refrains don't have any impact on the decisions of media organizations."
So, in order to "protect" lefty 1st amendment rights, conservatives/republicans have to shut up.
Well, that certainly IS the lefty "first amendment" argument these days, isn't it?
Let's face it. Weinstein is a victim of the Russians and those who "hacked" his mind, making him do things he would never do on his own.
I blame Trump.
Achilles said...
AReasonableMan said...
Now I Know! said...
"I hope Althouse's conservative readers will now stop buying from Amazon given their role in covering up the evil misdeeds of this Weinstein guy. "
Another strong point. The hits just keep coming. Althousians will clearly be complicit in Weinstein's guilt if they continue to buy from Amazon. I think this is now well understood. It's Walmart for me from here on out.
What about this story turns leftists into complete idiots?
Both of these posts are just really stupid.
It's Alinsky, but the kind of Alinsky that doesn't work once you know the secret. Basically the easy way to win this is to be the one asking the questions and not the one asked the questions.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा