Harvey Weinstein: Why is it about so much more than Harvey Weinstein?

[Guy Kilmore]

6 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I would guess that people had been coming forward for quite some time in many of these cases. Knowing how the press works they often hold onto stories until they can find a good time or place for them, not saying that is quite what has happened here, but definitely they tend to jump on trends. Its strange how they managed to unearth so many cases in such a short amount of time. Why didn't they publish these stories before. 

But they don't cases of rape and sexual harrassment are often underreported.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4310765

So what is interesting is that people are coming forward now, are being listen to now, and action is being taken now.  Historically this hasn't been true. 

[Eggegg]

11 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

But they don't cases of rape and sexual harrassment are often underreported.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4310765

So what is interesting is that people are coming forward now, are being listen to now, and action is being taken now.  Historically this hasn't been true. 

Well my point was that I'm sure the media had most of these stories already, tucked away. Why weren't they doing anything about them before. Weinstein was an open secret, almost everyone knew it. Nobody did anything. Cosby too. Even Spacey had a bunch of rumours around him. 

If it took having Trump in office to get the media to get off their arses and do something (because they don't like Trump) then I'm not really happy about that either. What was preventing them before? Nothing it seems. 

[Xray the Enforcer]

The NYT and New Yorker did not run the stories before October because nobody would go on record. The reason why you are seeing multiple stories in multiple outlets now isn't because the media are chasing a trend, it's because more people are willing to go on record with their stories.

[mankytoes]

5 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

The NYT and New Yorker did not run the stories before October because nobody would go on record. The reason why you are seeing multiple stories in multiple outlets now isn't because the media are chasing a trend, it's because more people are willing to go on record with their stories.

If that's true, that's reasonable. This might be controversial on here, but I'm not sure off the record accusations should even be reported. Such an easy way to hurt someone, I can imagine 4chan trolls having a lot of fun with that sort of thing.

[Eggegg]

6 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

The NYT and New Yorker did not run the stories before October because nobody would go on record. The reason why you are seeing multiple stories in multiple outlets now isn't because the media are chasing a trend, it's because more people are willing to go on record with their stories.

Yeah thats fair, but then I wonder why people weren't prepared to go on record previously, but would do now. Does the media not hold some responsibility for that. they seem to have managed to unearth a load of people willing to talk quite easily, and there doesn't seem to be much that has changed that would have stopped people talking before, which allows them to speak out now. 

If victims felt they couldn't come forward because they didn't believe it would go anywhere or there would be negative consequences for them, then surely its up to the reporters to make sure that doesn't happen, that the story gets out and that it won't backfire. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

10 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Yeah thats fair, but then I wonder why people weren't prepared to go on record previously, but would do now. Does the media not hold some responsibility for that. they seem to have managed to unearth a load of people willing to talk quite easily, and there doesn't seem to be much that has changed that would have stopped people talking before, which allows them to speak out now. 

If victims felt they couldn't come forward because they didn't believe it would go anywhere or there would be negative consequences for them, then surely its up to the reporters to make sure that doesn't happen, that the story gets out and that it won't backfire. 

No reporter anywhere could guarantee that I'm afraid.

[Guy Kilmore]

6 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Well my point was that I'm sure the media had most of these stories already, tucked away. Why weren't they doing anything about them before. Weinstein was an open secret, almost everyone knew it. Nobody did anything. Cosby too. Even Spacey had a bunch of rumours around him. 

If it took having Trump in office to get the media to get off their arses and do something (because they don't like Trump) then I'm not really happy about that either. What was preventing them before? Nothing it seems. 

 

6 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

The NYT and New Yorker did not run the stories before October because nobody would go on record. The reason why you are seeing multiple stories in multiple outlets now isn't because the media are chasing a trend, it's because more people are willing to go on record with their stories.

 

14 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Yeah thats fair, but then I wonder why people weren't prepared to go on record previously, but would do now. Does the media not hold some responsibility for that. they seem to have managed to unearth a load of people willing to talk quite easily, and there doesn't seem to be much that has changed that would have stopped people talking before, which allows them to speak out now. 

If victims felt they couldn't come forward because they didn't believe it would go anywhere or there would be negative consequences for them, then surely its up to the reporters to make sure that doesn't happen, that the story gets out and that it won't backfire. 

That was the point.  People are willing to take the risk to go on record more now than before, that was the point of the article I shared.  There is a steep inherent risk to reporting sexual assault.  Yes, reporters could do better (I am more thinking about the Corey Feldman and Barbra Walters interaction), but, well, we could, and should, all be doing better.  This is more than just the "media" doing something, it is also about everything around it.  "The Media" is just apart of it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Yeah thats fair, but then I wonder why people weren't prepared to go on record previously, but would do now. Does the media not hold some responsibility for that. they seem to have managed to unearth a load of people willing to talk quite easily, and there doesn't seem to be much that has changed that would have stopped people talking before, which allows them to speak out now. 

If victims felt they couldn't come forward because they didn't believe it would go anywhere or there would be negative consequences for them, then surely its up to the reporters to make sure that doesn't happen, that the story gets out and that it won't backfire. 

It’s all about power and the fear of retribution. Once people saw that the most powerful person in Hollywood could be taken down for his disgusting behavior, everyone became fair game. That’s why I said when the Weinstein story first broke that this would be different from other sexual harassment and rape scandals and that the fallout would be significant.

[Guy Kilmore]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s all about power and the fear of retribution. Once people saw that the most powerful person in Hollywood could be taken down for his disgusting behavior, everyone became fair game. That’s why I said when the Weinstein story first broke that this would be different from other sexual harassment and rape scandals and that the fallout would be significant.

And I wonder if Weinstein "breaking" occurred because of Trump getting elected, like, just people had enough of someone getting away with that behavior and rewarded for it.  I don't know, I just know I respect the courage it takes to come forward and go on the record.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

And I wonder if Weinstein "breaking" occurred because of Trump getting elected, like, just people had enough of someone getting away with that behavior and rewarded for it.  I don't know, I just know I respect the courage it takes to come forward and go on the record.

Maybe, but I suspect that would be a secondary reason and it would also have to include the likes of Cosby and other famous abusers who’ve gotten away with their crimes. I think with Weinstein it had more to do with how widespread his behavior was and who his victims are. It’s also worth noting that liberals are easier to take down in large part because they’re much more willing to turn on their own when bad behavior is discovered. The obvious examples are how sex scandals typically take down liberal politicians immediately while conservatives tend to be able to weather the storm.

[Kalbear]

The main thing that I understand happened with the Weinstein reporting is that the reporter got a number of stories that sounded the same and went around to their sources to point out how similar they were, and ended up convincing all of them to come forward at once. None were individually going to do it, but when they saw how much damage that was caused and how much their silence hurt, and how similar all the stories were - they all decided to do it, and have some strength in numbers.

Once that happened, it made it far more likely.

Trump helped a smidgen, but a lot of it is because this one reporter did a hell of a job getting them on record.

[Guy Kilmore]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The main thing that I understand happened with the Weinstein reporting is that the reporter got a number of stories that sounded the same and went around to their sources to point out how similar they were, and ended up convincing all of them to come forward at once. None were individually going to do it, but when they saw how much damage that was caused and how much their silence hurt, and how similar all the stories were - they all decided to do it, and have some strength in numbers.

Once that happened, it made it far more likely.

Trump helped a smidgen, but a lot of it is because this one reporter did a hell of a job getting them on record.

I didn't know the story behind that.  I am glad someone took the step to do it and the victims were courageous enough to come forward.

[Xray the Enforcer]

There were three reporters who worked their asses off to get these stories told: Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey of The New York Times, and Ronan Farrow (who works for NBC but whose article on Weinstein was published by The New Yorker). They were diligent and just kept reporting and kept reporting and finally, after getting a huge paper trail of evidence, someone was willing to go on record. And that opened the floodgates. 

What's really remarkable -- and fucking disgusting -- is that both Farrow and Kantor/Twohey (with a follow up by Kantor and Rachel Abrams) wrote stories that are thousands of words long, with a number of sources apiece, and yet there's almost no overlap in reporting/accounts/sources between the two stories. That's how wide-ranging Weinstein's transgressions were. It's mind-boggling and appalling. Kantor mentions this in an interview I link below.

Here's a great interview with Jodi Kantor about how she and her colleagues broke the story

Kantor, from the interview:

 

Quote

 

"When I read Ronan’s story, part of me thought, “There appear to be more than enough allegations to go around.”

What does it mean that you can do this entire long New York Times investigation that’s thousands and thousands of words, and then a few days later you can do this enormous New Yorker investigation that is thousands and thousands of words and the accounts are both filled with these devastating allegations, and yet there is remarkably little overlap between the two stories. I think it is a great demonstration of how we now have to ask ourselves, “What is the size and scope of this thing, and how much more is out there that we haven’t even learned about."

 

 

[Kelli Fury]

11 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Yeah thats fair, but then I wonder why people weren't prepared to go on record previously, but would do now. Does the media not hold some responsibility for that. they seem to have managed to unearth a load of people willing to talk quite easily, and there doesn't seem to be much that has changed that would have stopped people talking before, which allows them to speak out now. 

If victims felt they couldn't come forward because they didn't believe it would go anywhere or there would be negative consequences for them, then surely its up to the reporters to make sure that doesn't happen, that the story gets out and that it won't backfire. 

The majority of victims IN ANY FIELD who file harassment claims, whether internally or externally, do not continue working in the field the harassment happened in. This holds true whether they are successful in their claim or not. Even if everyone believes you and the law works in your favor, you still suffer consequences professionally. No journalist can prevent that.

[kairparavel]

And when the reporters/media aren't so great...

 

 

[mankytoes]

3 hours ago, kairparavel said:

And when the reporters/media aren't so great...

 

 

That's from the Daily Mail, an absolutely toxic shitrag popular with mildly/severely bigoted English people. And Jan Moir is a particularly nasty cunt whose previous highlights include attacking gay culture in her article about the death of a gay pop star. But mainly she is used as an attack dog for other women, presumably because it looks better for a woman to be writing these stories (the Mail has writers of various ethnicities for the same purpose). That article is not by any means unusual for this paper.

[Eggegg]

I think the most repugnant thing about that is that they seem to have gone into full attack mode on Kate Maltby with the left hand article, in a massive attempt to discredit her. Its a very transparent and unpleasant way to try and deflect the narrative and pretty standard behaviour for the Mail.

Now, having said that, I decided to look for the article online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5041031/Jan-Moir-Kate-Maltby-making-big-fuss-nothing.html

and I wouldn't want anyone to click the link and add to the mail's numbers but at the very least I think its worth taking into consideration the essence of the article, as foamy mouthed as it is. I do think we need to be careful we don't demonise everyone who has made an advance on someone, or call them a monster or treat them as if they were Weinstein. Damien Green or Kelvin Hopkins are not in the same league. 

That article is getting very close to victim blaming and I find it quite disgusting, we should be able to distinguish offences without pointing at who is making the accusations. I don't see the need to bring up anything about Maltby here, that they chose to do it shows the level these people are playing in.

[dornishpen]

On 11/2/2017 at 1:57 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe, but I suspect that would be a secondary reason and it would also have to include the likes of Cosby and other famous abusers who’ve gotten away with their crimes. I think with Weinstein it had more to do with how widespread his behavior was and who his victims are. It’s also worth noting that liberals are easier to take down in large part because they’re much more willing to turn on their own when bad behavior is discovered. The obvious examples are how sex scandals typically take down liberal politicians immediately while conservatives tend to be able to weather the storm.

 

I don’t think that’s really true. We’ve known for decades that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and almost no one has turned against him. Liberals tend to defend him by saying his accusers are doing so for political reasons, but that doesn’t appear to be the case once you look past Paula Jones. And some republican sexual predators absolutely lose their careers, Mark Foley for example.

One thing that some of the recent cases have in common is the harasser/assaulter being less powerful than they used to be, at least this is true in the cases of Weinstein and Cosby.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Dornite said:

I don’t think that’s really true. We’ve known for decades that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and almost no one has turned against him. Liberals tend to defend him by saying his accusers are doing so for political reasons, but that doesn’t appear to be the case once you look past Paula Jones. And some republican sexual predators absolutely lose their careers, Mark Foley for example.

One thing that some of the recent cases have in common is the harasser/assaulter being less powerful than they used to be, at least this is true in the cases of Weinstein and Cosby.

To be fair, Clinton lost his career. Outside of speaking engagements and the like. I suppose he probably shouldn't even get those given his history. Maybe this will lead to that.

[dornishpen]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To be fair, Clinton lost his career. Outside of speaking engagements and the like. I suppose he probably shouldn't even get those given his history. Maybe this will lead to that.

His career seems to be pretty standard former president. He still campaigns for people and not just Hillary, he did some unofficial diplomacy for Obama, he has a foundation. He does fundraisers, disaster relief and so on.