
Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True? - abhi3
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/17/business/media/ronan-farrow.html
======
xhkkffbf
I generally like some of his work, but I think he could have done a better job
of digging up some of the problems with the accusations. When Harvey Weinstein
got some of the women onto the stands, they had to admit they were sending
some pretty affectionate text messages.

Farrow's reporting would have been better if he had managed to get some of the
other side into the articles. It's kind of sad we had to wait until the trials
to get a fuller picture.

~~~
jdm2212
This comment reminds me a bit about what Dave Chapelle said (jokingly) about
Bill Cosby:

> Didn’t want to believe it. At first, I didn’t believe it. I said, “These
> people are obviously trying to destroy Dr. Cosby’s rich legacy.” Even 34
> allegations into it, I was still like, “Man… he probably only raped ten or
> 11 of those people.”

The "other side" is that maybe there's a flimsy pretext for a few of the
sexual assaults. Not all of them. Not even most. Just in some cases that women
whose careers and reputations Weinstein had the power to destroy chose instead
to pretend to be interested in him rather than repulsed when he threatened
their livelihoods.

~~~
xhkkffbf
That's all well and good, but I think it's kind of a bizarre argument. First,
the DA only prosecuted a few cases, almost certainly the strongest. In them,
the defense came up with some pretty surprising emails and text messages.

If these women didn't like what Weinstein did, they could have endured much
less of it if they went to the police right away. They would have saved
themselves quite a bit of hardship-- and they would have saved many other
women at the same time.

You make it seem like they had to go along with it all to keep getting
Hollywood roles. Ordinarily, it sounds pretty sleezy when people say they were
forced to do something bad to keep their job. The ethical thing is to quit
your job because no job is worth compromising your ethics. How many other
women were targeted so these women could keep their starring roles?

~~~
jdm2212
> The ethical thing is to quit your job

The ethical thing to do is not to rape your subordinates. If they choose to
persist in their chosen profession despite rape or sexual harassment, that in
no way diminishes the severity of the rape and sexual harassment.

~~~
xhkkffbf
Well sure. That's obvious. But Weinstein's defense is that they gave him
plenty of assurances that it was all consensual. Using the word "love" is just
part of the hint.

Let's put it a different way: would you work for a rapist or a sexual
harrasser? Would you condone it? That's what these women chose to do. And they
were more certain of this fact than anyone else.

~~~
jdm2212
The guy was known throughout Hollywood to be someone you wouldn't leave a
friend alone with because he might well rape her. So, yeah, it's possible he
was sincerely confused by affectionate text messages... but it's a lot more
likely he's a manipulative sociopath who knew how to get his victims to damage
their ability to accuse him in the future.

I wouldn't work for a rapist or sexual harasser, but I know plenty of people
who care more about their careers and they probably would. That doesn't
justify raping or sexually harassing them. And even if they tried to mitigate
the damage to their careers by playing along with the abuse, that would still
not justify or mitigate the abuse.

~~~
xhkkffbf
I just want to point out what you're in favor of:

1) Lying to a lover. 2) Lying to a boss. 3) Covering up a boss's misbehavior.
4) Doing all of this for money.

Somehow you seem to think that Weinstein's behavior makes it all acceptable to
do these things. Really?

And if it was known throughout Hollywood that he was terrible, well, why did
they women take the job in the first place? They certainly should have known,
right?

~~~
jdm2212
It's remarkable that you can hear stories of the form "my boss is
raping/harassing me, and I'm terrified of him so I play along to protect
myself" and characterize the victim as "lying" to "cover up misbehavior" "for
money".

Harvey Weinstein has no agency in your version. He's not a sex addict
narcissist who uses his power to make or break movie careers to manipulate and
abuse and rape women. He's just a "lover" and "boss" whose greedy, ambitious,
slutty employees are out to seduce him.

------
mc32
I appreciate Ronan and his reporting but I admit, the NYT has an ironic point.
With the seriousness of the subject matter he should be more rigorous and less
glamorous. Noting, unlike less reputable reporters he’s not purposely making
things up to align them with an agenda. But, it’s sad to say that that has to
be celebrated rather than expected.

