Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pravda-on-the-Hudson vs. Harvey Weinstein
When I first read of the supposed antics of Harvey Weinstein, I found myself in the position once assumed by Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca. Just as he was “shocked … shocked” to discover that there was gambling going on in Rick’s Café Américain, so I was completely taken aback at the suggestion that a Hollywood movie mogul, whom Meryl Streep once celebrated as a god, should have taken advantage of his position to bed a host of would-be starlets. Who, I asked myself, could have imagined such a thing?
The answer to that silly question is, of course, that no one who knows anything about Hollywood should be surprised at all. Producers and directors have been sampling the merchandise for more than a century, and much of the merchandise has been ready, willing, and able. Actors and actresses are not famous for their moral integrity; and, if to get ahead, they have to go ahead, they are generally prepared to do so. It is hard to believe Meryl Streep and Judi Dench when they claim that they were blissfully unaware of what everyone in Hollywood apparently knew. We live in an age of pious posturing.
If the stories now being told are true, Weinstein worked hard at the job. A former waitress at the Tribeca Grill, which is located in the building where Weinstein has his office, reports that he had a standard operating procedure:
When I was working as a waitress, I watched numerous times as a string of young women — some seemingly no older than 21 — entered the restaurant for long, flirty dinners with him, even though he was married with five children.
These women were all the same: vaguely European, always beautiful, stylishly dressed, and totally out of place next to someone like him…
The ritual for his rendezvous was very firm. Champagne, caviar, and an unspoken rule that Weinstein and his date not be disturbed. The pair would sit close, whispering and touching each other suggestively. After dining, Weinstein and a woman would often disappear for a while, exiting the restaurant through a side door.
A fellow server told me: “When a girl arrived waiting for Harvey, we all knew what was in store for her. After a little small talk and a sip of champagne, there would be an ‘office tour’ — usually well past working hours, after which the girl would return looking worse for wear and barely able to finish the glass.”
As her testimony suggests, there is one thing missing from the story as told in Pravda-on-the-Hudson: an acknowledgement that a fair number of the “victims” were complicit in the crime.
But that, too, is unsurprising. None of this is new, and Weinstein is said to have had quite a reputation. The only question worth asking is the one that Weinstein is asking himself: Why is Pravda going after him? And why now?
After all, the editors of that rag had the story in hand 13 years ago. Sharon Waxman worked at Pravda in those days, and she reports that she “nearly gagged” when she “read Jim Rutenberg’s sanctimonious piece on Saturday about the ‘media enablers’ who kept this story from the public for decades. ‘Until now,’ he puffed, ‘no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.’” For prominent among Weinstein’s “media enablers” were Waxman’s editors 13 years ago at Rutenberg’s paper.
Waxman claims to have had the goods on Weinstein. But, as she puts it, “The story I reported never ran.”
After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly … and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.
I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known. I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times and that he was a powerful person overall.
But I had the story, and this was the Times. Right?
Wrong…. The Times then-culture editor Jon Landman, now an editor-at-large for Bloomberg, thought the story was unimportant, asking me why it mattered.
“He’s not a publicly elected official,” he told me. I explained, to no avail, that a public company would certainly have a problem with a procurer on the payroll for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What, we must ask, has changed? Did Weinstein declare for public office? Er, no. Has the media become more virtuous? That is the self-serving opinion being floated by the Associated Press, and you can believe it if you wish. Or could there be some other reason?
Weinstein offers us a clue. In his incoherent ramblings at a recent press conference, he displayed real fury, intimating that he had been betrayed, asserting that he had an arrangement with Pravda that the editors of that rag did not honor, and threatening a lawsuit. Then, he added,
I am going to need to channel that anger so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party. One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC. While this might seem coincidental, it has been in the works for a year. It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.
I would suggest that Pravda spiked Sharon Waxman’s story because Weinstein was a member in very good standing of the left-liberal political establishment and had a longstanding understanding with the owners and editors of that rag. After all, family-owned newspapers rarely do the dirty to a close friend of the family – which is why Weinstein was shocked when Pravda did him in and why he instinctively tried to shield himself by boasting of his “progressive” commitments. It had worked for Bill Clinton, he presumably thought. Maybe it can work for me.
But, of course, that was then, and this is now – which requires me to rephrase the question I posed: Why is Pravda-on-the-Hudson now out to get one of its own? What has changed?
The answer that I find most persuasive is suggested by the editorial published by Pravda on Friday, which was entitled “Harvey Weinstein’s Money Should Not Buy Democrats’ Silence.” In that piece, the editors mention the extent of Weinstein’s donations to the party, singling out for special attention Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Then, after rehearsing Weinstein’s supposed infractions, the editors add:
Tales of Mr. Weinstein’s offenses were widely shared in Hollywood but not publicly discussed. Despite years of fund-raisers with Hollywood celebrities, those who took his donations may have never heard the stories. But they have now.
A number of members of Congress have pledged to give all contributions they received from Mr. Weinstein to charity, including to organizations that assist victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. There has been no comment from Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, who condemned Donald Trump for boasting of sexual assault on the “Access Hollywood” tape. These Democratic leaders, admired by many young women and men, should make clear that Mr. Weinstein also deserves condemnation. If such powerful leaders take the money and stay mum, who will speak for women like Mr. Weinstein’s accusers?
There is, I would suggest, more to the attack on Harvey Weinstein than meets the eye. There is a civil war going on today in the Democratic Party, and both Barack Obama and the Clintons are being denounced by the hard left, which may well take over the party. Pravda has now taken sides in that war. To attack Weinstein is to attack the wing of the party that he so long supported. At best, they suppose, he was a “useful idiot,” and he can now be dispensed with.
Anyone who believes the pious pronouncements now found in Pravda concerning the abuse of women should pause for a moment to reconsider. As was acknowledged in the story that newspaper published, there is nothing of substance related therein that was not widely known long, long ago. It has long been in the power of the Timesmen to put an end to the gross conduct they now attribute to Harvey Weinstein. But they did not care, and I doubt that they care much now. They protected him until they had another motive for letting him have it.
Published in Entertainment
I thought about the former point before I wrote the piece. The hard left is notoriously hostile to Israel. But would Pravda go along with that? I think that the Clintons and Obama are the enemy and that Weinstein was low-hanging fruit.
Re # 30
I didn’t know about that.
Yes, I’m afraid public support of Israel would explain why they’re all turning on him.
Ronan Farrow has now weighed in with a lengthy piece, rich in detail, in The New Yorker. Isn’t it odd that no one compares Weinstein with Bill Clinton? They are like peas in a pod.
I wouldn’t call it piling on. Pretty lame.
My SNL take would look like this:
Cold open, SNL writers around a table grousing about how to deal with Weinstein. A cardboard cutout of Weinstein is the focus of their ire. The floor is littered with wadded up paper.
Writer 1 – (Peter Robinson): we have to do something – this story isn’t going away, the viewers are, but this story isn’t – (folding up the Pravda on the Hudson).
Writer 2 – (Rob Long): Speak for yourself, The company formerly known as Weinstein called me last week to work on the rewrite of the San Bernadino story – bump stocks are being added and Islam is being dropped. That’s good work. I write this, I’ll be…..
<going quiet as he notices that the Weinstein cutout has morphed into Jabba the Hutt>
…Bantha pudu.
Writer 3 (Unknown, head down scribbling on a notepad): Yeah, I can’t do it either, I only have the one Poinsetta and we all know what Harvey does to plants.
Hillary Clinton (McKinnon) enters, (bringing her own Cardboard cutout and placing it next to Harvey’s)
Clinton: YESSSSS People – working for my man Harvey (awkwardly giving a high-five to writer 1:).
She admires the cutout of Harvey – “Isn’t he just god-like? reminds me of….”
Writer 3: Enki? The Sumerian water God? Fertilizing the crops around Eridu?
Hillary: Yesssss – (a look of complete adoration on her face.)
Writer 1: Come on people – he asked women to watch him shower –
Hillary (sadly): He never asked me to watch him shower
Writer 1: …we can work with this…
Harvey Weinstein enters, backing into the room, mumbling – “thank god I lost her – oh Hi Hillary” while moving to keep the table between him and Hillary. He looks around and begins to get angry.
Writer 3 reacting quickly: we are just working on the rewrite of our famous skit, “Sexual Harassment and You” – with Tom Brady – you know where we point out that sexual harassment is perfectly ok as long as one is Handsome, Attractive and not Unattractive. You play the part of Tom Brady and we change the “and not unattractive” part to be “capable of making or breaking your prospective Hollywood Career”. You even get to squeeze a woman’s breast on film.
Writer 2: Don’t forget walking around in your underwear.
Harvey beams, while shooing Hillary’s hand away:
Hillary’s cutout has moved closer to Harvey’s cutout which has begun to grimace.
Writer 1: Right, perfect, you write that while we have to get Hillary and Harvey into makeup and then rehearsal too bad we only have 1 dressing room, you guys will have to share – Hillary is replaying the role played by Kate McKinnon.
Harvey: Playing Kate McKinnon?
Writer 2: with a cherubic smile – yeah, you get to squeeze her breast at about the 1:13 mark. Come on, we’ll use the office as a changing room
Hillary: Harvey, I finally get to sit on your casting couch!
Writer 3 (revealed to be James Lileks): Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!
Paul,
Here we have it. Remember the old saying about communism. Under communism, everyone is equal except some are more equal than others. For the left, no woman should ever be sexually harassed except some women are asking for trouble.
Bill Clinton got the same get out of jail free card from the left. Clinton was going after trailer trash & bimbos and besides his voting record was really good so stay out of his private life the left wing chorus wailed.
A standard so double that the mind has trouble holding this much hypocrisy in a single thought.
Regards,
Jim
Possibly. I hadn’t heard about that. But if that’s the case, to me that would be more evidence of the influence of Obama’s identity politics cult on the left. Anti-Semitism that’s no longer spoken sub rosa, but shouted loudly from the rooftops by empowered radicals.
Candy Crowley helped out Obama wrt Benghazi in the second debate. Why Republicans agree to have debates where it’s 2 or 3 on 1 is one of life’s mysteries.
Jabba the Hutt~Harvey Weinstein. Too cruel.
Hugely cruel. My eyes are watering and my gut hurts. Very cruel to make some one laugh so hard.
Re : comment 29
Obama’s daughter working for Weinstein gives you the heebie jeebies ?Why ? Her high social position keeps her perfectly safe. Or is that what gives you the heebie jeebies ? The idea of people that openly impervious to the obvious classism and, well, race based exploitation ?
I’ll bet Weinstein bribed for sex and sexually bullied only white women who didn’t have the money or connections to retaliate. Same quarry Bill Clinton went after.
#41, excellent point, such people often have finely honed sixth sense for vulnerability. I guess the real pros (such as Weinstein) are always sizing up desirable women for emotional vulnerability and power of potential protectors. Apparently he was a genius at such calculations. Sometimes even geniuses get busted.
Maybe off-topic, but something about which I wonder:
Is there any room to discuss the victims’ choices? We’re all taught early on to avoid dark alleys, don’t speak to strangers, don’t take candy from the creepy man in the van, and don’t wear a meat-dress into the lion exhibit (ok, maybe that last one is advice for Lady Gaga). There are predators out there. I am not excusing the predator, but are there actions we can all take to reduce our odds of becoming a victim? I think so. While dressing provocatively around a known predator isn’t “asking for it,” neither is it the wisest choice (imho). Our culture of victimhood has gone so far beyond the point of anyone bearing an ounce of personal responsibility, we’re not even allowed to mention it any more. Does this make me a sexist or misogynist? Or maybe just a grumpy old (privileged) white guy?
Oh, I assume that Weinstein believed himself so safe that he could sexually bully anyone. Including a former President’s daughter. Power is a helluva drug.
Well, I dislike him for both reasons. There are a lot of powerful men who don’t exploit very young women for their own pleasure, especially when they’re married with five kids. He also apparently settled eight (8) different lawsuits brought by various women. Yes, we all have appetites, but I don’t think we should so quickly let him off the hook on this count.
JMH,
Your point is well taken in anything like a normal discussion of real people in real situations. My comment is about the incredible difference in reaction to high profile conservatives v. high profile liberals involving sexual harassment allegations. Bill Clinton had a number of clear allegations of both extreme near rape allegations and at least one that we know of actual rape. These were corroborated by the 4 Arkansas state troopers who had been setting the women up for Bill. Donald Trump made a locker room style comment and had it recorded. Trump’s words were referred to as a sexual assault on women even though no actual behavior was ever involved. Bill Clinton’s actual sexual assaults on women plus an actual rape were written off as “bimbo eruptions”. Many of Bill Clinton’s victims were totally innocent office personnel not would be actresses. Paula Jones was $10,000 a year secretary when Clinton’s minyans tricked her into being in a room alone with Clinton. Her story is of near rape not of sexual suggestions like massage or showers. Yet, she was referred to as “trailer trash” because of her poor beginnings by the most pious left-wing voices who had been preaching sexual harassment for a decade before.
There is nothing real about the reactions to these high profile people problems. This is the purest example of hypocritical political self-interest one can imagine. That a young person without experience might allow themselves to be put in a compromising position because they had a head full of wishful thinking isn’t really very surprising. That the left protects a left-wing proven predator and falsely accuses a right-wing guy on the basis of one slip of the tongue is a level of hypocrisy that still amazes most of us.
Maybe it shouldn’t anymore.
Regards,
Jim
Re: comment 43
Is there room to discuss the victims choices ? Yes. I think smart middle and working class white women should just acknowledge to themselves that they’re more the target of sexual harassment, and then follow a version of Mike Pence’s example. (Gosh, the Pences are looking like brilliant people these days.) It gets them nowhere to fail to acknowledge reality or whine that the world isn’t the way they want it to be. At least one of Bill Clinton’s victims ended up raped because she acted like his social equal. She acted like she was as protected as someone with Obama’s daughter’s status would have been alone in a room with Bill.
Yeah, there’s room to discuss the choices of Weinstein’s victims and targets.
One example in the Farrow article Prof Rahe linked to was Emily Nestor, a law-school grad, on her first day of temping at the Weinstein office wanting to get into entertainment. She’d been warned about him. When he invited her for drinks, she suggested coffee the next morning and thought he would decline. He accepted and had her come over to his hotel room the next day for a breakfast meeting. She said she dressed frumpily for the hour-long meeting. He propositioned her for sex. She said no “at least a dozen times” and got out of the incident physically unscathed. She spoke with company officials about the incident, though decided not to pursue the matter further.
So she wasn’t naive and uninformed. She had tried to maneuver herself out of trouble. She offered a response that she thought was safe and that he would refuse, but failed to navigate herself out of a one-on-one meeting with him anyway. So she didn’t dress provocatively. She explicitly said no to someone she clearly knew could open doors for her professionally. She spoke up after it happened. While she escaped being groped or raped, she was affected enough by the experience that she opted not to get into entertainment.
What manifestations of personal responsibility are missing from her account?
Re: comment 48
She’s more lucky than smart. You bring your boyfriend or husband if you’re going to have coffee in the boss’s apartment or hotel room. That sends the clearest message that sex is out of the question.
Yeah, and remember, the left thinks the Pences are weirdos.
Oy! I never thought that a social conservative like me would ever have the occasion to take up a social progressive rallying cry in criticism of a fellow conservative. That statement above smacks of victim blaming.
Given the stated premises, the unstated conclusion is women should know their place (their social class) and avoid interactions with their social betters to diminish the risk of rape. I hope I’m not the only one here who sees all sorts of things wrong with this reasoning. And Ansonia, if I’m misrepresenting your views, I’d be happy to be disabused.
Re: comment 51
You’re misrepresenting my views in this way: I would say all people should know where they are on the wealth and status ladder and, at least, avoid intimate or secluded places for certain meetings with people who have the status advantage and who aren’t well known to them. (For instance, in To Kill a Mockingbird, that good and innocent man—the one who ends up falsely accused of rape— he should never have allowed himself to be lured into being alone in a house with that—this much was obvious to him— pitiable and needy woman. His was a case of a person having more pity than caution. But you can have more ambition than caution. Due to what you incorrectly think is a recognition of your acting talent, you can have more euphoria, and excitement over potential employment, than you have caution; or more desire for acceptance, approval or friendship, than caution.) People should also be cautious about the circumstances in which they place themselves with physically stronger people they don’t know well.
I think you actually have more power, and more protection and respect from others, when it’s clear you unashamedly acknowledge reality and act accordingly.
I didn’t read it that way.
Malia is protected because of her connections. No one can intimidate her into silence and any accusation from her would be met with all the seriousness and weight Obama can throw behind it.
For a nobody wannabe starlet, they have nothing. Accusations will fall on deaf ears, intimidation is easy. They are easy prey, because no one will believe them.
These power plays need to be a part of the risk assessment.
Re: comment 53
What Stina just said is what I mean.
I do think this is too harsh.
She shouldn’t have gone to his room alone, but she showed a lot of wisdom elsewhere. Let’s not expect perfection from flawed humans.
Heh.
Re comment # 55
I agree. And let’s all learn from our own and each other’s mistakes. (It does sound harsh. I didn’t mean it as harsh as it sounds.)
I have more to say on this, but I don’t want to derail Prof Rahe’s thread. Maybe I’ll post on it if I can make time.
Agreed that Stina’s comment is a helpful elucidation.
Wait, now I can’t hate him so much. No, no, a wealthy successful American Jew who loves Israel? Truly rare. The only thing I can’t figure out is, why, of all the peoples, creeds, races in the world, would Jews be opposed to gun ownership?
Is it hypocrisy? It’s a weapon the effectiveness of which is weakened if one is found a serial abuser of thing they attack about. It would be hypocrisy if they cared about harassment, sexual predation, girls, women, not to mention the poor, equality, blacks, hispanics, gays or any of the victims they posture about. They don’t care about any of it and it’s obvious. These are small beginnings in affecting the cultural war we’ve conceded to them for a half century.