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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 80 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Stina (View Comment):
    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.

    If she did the internship while FP Obama was in office, she had Secret Service protection.

    • #61
  2. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Re: comment 59

    You and me both. I just don’t get it.

    To me, the only thing as strange is black Americans who don’t recognize Planned Parenthood for what it is.

    • #62
  3. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    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.

    If she did the internship while FP Obama was in office, she had Secret Service protection.

    According to the article, she was hired as an intern this year.

    • #63
  4. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Re: comment 63

    No one is going to be sexually inappropriate with a President’s daughter. C’mon. And, since about 1970, I’d guess only black Weinstein types would dare be sexually inappropriate with almost any black woman.

    But, since the mid to late 1960’s, it’s been open season on young white women. (People have been increasingly sensing yet denying this since the summer Mary Joe Kopchne was left to die in the water.) Long ago, we should have started encouraging young white women to face that fact, and to focus on protecting themselves by, at least, sending clear social messages through behavioral cues and, in certain situations, also staying much closer to sober.

    • #64
  5. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    When the Tiger Woods story emerged, Limbaugh mentioned that a lot of people in the sports media had to know about his affairs, but they kept quiet since Tiger was good for the business. What embarrassing stories about Obama or HRC has the media not told us?

    I remember Limbaugh saying that. And I also remember him saying when you are famous, you get people fawning over you, and your family knows you aren’t that great, and it is their job to keep you grounded. That’s why Tiger’s wife went after him with the golf club. Tough love.

    I don’t think you can embarass either Obama or HRC.  They seem to lack the ability to be genuinely humble.  They are the smartest person in any room they are in.  The media may well forget about Obama in a few years. His was a presidency that was built on the shaky ground of impatient executive orders and expanded presidential liberties.  Trump is keeping the press busy trying to reduce the president’s powers. At least while a Republican is in office.

     

    • #65
  6. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    When the Tiger Woods story emerged, Limbaugh mentioned that a lot of people in the sports media had to know about his affairs, but they kept quiet since Tiger was good for the business. What embarrassing stories about Obama or HRC has the media not told us?

    I remember Limbaugh saying that. And I also remember him saying when you are famous, you get people fawning over you, and your family knows you aren’t that great, and it is their job to keep you grounded. That’s why Tiger’s wife went after him with the golf club. Tough love.

    I don’t think you can embarass either Obama or HRC. They seem to lack the ability to be genuinely humble. They are the smartest person in any room they are in. The media may well forget about Obama in a few years. His was a presidency that was built on the shaky ground of impatient executive orders and expanded presidential liberties. Trump is keeping the press busy trying to reduce the president’s powers. At least while a Republican is in office.

    My wife’s reaction, when she spoke with Obama for about fifteen minutes circa 1996, was that he had vacuous charisma.  He’s an ignorant man who thinks he’s brilliant.  Off TelePrompTer Obama’s a mediocrity. Bill Clinton is a man of low morals who is nonetheless much smarter than Obama.  The contrast between them was clear when Clinton took over for Obama at the White House in Dzecember, 2011.  But it will be a long time before a substantial portion of the MSM admits this.

    • #66
  7. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Re: comment # 66

    That’s an intriguing comment.

    • #67
  8. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    When the Tiger Woods story emerged, Limbaugh mentioned that a lot of people in the sports media had to know about his affairs, but they kept quiet since Tiger was good for the business. What embarrassing stories about Obama or HRC has the media not told us?

    I remember Limbaugh saying that. And I also remember him saying when you are famous, you get people fawning over you, and your family knows you aren’t that great, and it is their job to keep you grounded. That’s why Tiger’s wife went after him with the golf club. Tough love.

    I don’t think you can embarass either Obama or HRC. They seem to lack the ability to be genuinely humble. They are the smartest person in any room they are in. The media may well forget about Obama in a few years. His was a presidency that was built on the shaky ground of impatient executive orders and expanded presidential liberties. Trump is keeping the press busy trying to reduce the president’s powers. At least while a Republican is in office.

    My wife’s reaction, when she spoke with Obama for about fifteen minutes circa 1996, was that he had vacuous charisma. He’s an ignorant man who thinks he’s brilliant. Off TelePrompTer Obama’s a mediocrity. Bill Clinton is a man of low morals who is nonetheless much smarter than Obama. The contrast between them was clear when Clinton took over for Obama at the White House in Dzecember, 2011. But it will be a long time before a substantial portion of the MSM admits this.

    President Obama and former President Clinton speak to reporters in the briefing room of the White House, in Washington, Friday, Dec. 10, 2010. (Drew Angerer/ The New York Times)

    BJ:  Heeeeerrrrreeeee’s Billy! The Big Dog is back in town! Hubba hubba!

    BHO: Damn. I knew he would upstage me again. Gibbs is fired. I shouldn’t have allowed this!

    Gibbs: Look who I brought you! BJ still loves me!

    • #68
  9. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    My wife’s reaction, when she spoke with Obama for about fifteen minutes circa 1996, was that he had vacuous charisma. He’s an ignorant man who thinks he’s brilliant. Off TelePrompTer Obama’s a mediocrity.

    That good, eh? ; )

    • #69
  10. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I’m having the same problem with the Weinstein stories that I have had with the Clinton, Cosby, and Trump stories: women have a window of opportunity to press charges against someone. If they don’t take that action, I don’t think they have the right to destroy someone else’s life. These cases need to be argued in a courtroom with a judge presiding over the rules of evidence for the case.

    If we don’t hold the line on our rights as they were written down for us by the nation’s founding fathers, we will lose them.

    • #70
  11. J. Martin Hanks Member
    J. Martin Hanks
    @JMartinHanks

    Snirtler (View Comment):
    What manifestations of personal responsibility are missing from her account?

    I wasn’t really referring to any particular account.  I was reacting to the Donna Karan remark with subsequent retraction.  She was immediately attacked by the media.  Her comments may well have been off-base in this instance, but it just had me thinking about the topic on a broader scale (hence my mention of being “off-topic”).

    I am so bored with celebrity, politics, and media nonsense lately, I’d barely be paying attention if not for Ricochet.  Don’t assume I’ve read any accounts in-depth.  My awareness is limited to headlines mostly.  ;-P

    • #71
  12. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    I’m shocked and fascinated by this story. It’s amazing to me that people like Meryl Streep, and Matt Damon, Russell Crowe or Ben Affleck, and different media and political people were craven enough to cover for a person who is actually a kind of sadist.

    I don’t mean I think that, in their place, I’m sure I’d do better. But still, I’m floored by the fact that it seems just yesterday the Hollywood, media and political types were lining up to condemn Trump for his ancient, privately made, cynical statement about what some will allow the rich and powerful to do. And, all the while, those same whores were providing the service of their silence to Weinstein. Unbelievable.

    Women Weinstein abused really were, to the see-no-evil Leftist elites, like the people who had to be fed to the Minotaur , or like that kid chained up in the basement in that short story: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.

    • #72
  13. Melissa O'Sullivan Member
    Melissa O'Sullivan
    @melissaosullivan

    great and informative article

    and someone close to me knew of the probs at TWC.  All the assistants knew of it and all the industry knew.

    • #73
  14. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    J. Martin Hanks (View Comment):

    Snirtler (View Comment):
    What manifestations of personal responsibility are missing from her account?

    I wasn’t really referring to any particular account. I was reacting to the Donna Karan remark with subsequent retraction. She was immediately attacked by the media. Her comments may well have been off-base in this instance, but it just had me thinking about the topic on a broader scale (hence my mention of being “off-topic”).

    I am so bored with celebrity, politics, and media nonsense lately, I’d barely be paying attention if not for Ricochet. Don’t assume I’ve read any accounts in-depth. My awareness is limited to headlines mostly. ;-P

    I didn’t think you were referring to any one story.

    I brought up the Emily Nestor account in reply to the question on what part women play in assessing the risks of dealing with powerful, potentially predatory, men. She was an example of someone who anticipated the potential for trouble and largely succeeded in steering clear of it.

    • #74
  15. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    I was warned about the “casting couch” in 1957 and managed to avoid it, but I also got fired from my jobs several times. Told 2 or 3 bosses, “I was looking for a job when I found this one, so I’ll find another.” I think that sometimes the girls who give in, want that job, or money very badly, and are willing to compromise themselves.

    • #75
  16. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Kay of MT (View Comment):
    I was warned about the “casting couch” in 1957 and managed to avoid it, but I also got fired from my jobs several times. Told 2 or 3 bosses, “I was looking for a job when I found this one, so I’ll find another.” I think that sometimes the girls who give in, want that job, or money very badly, and are willing to compromise themselves.

    I think so too. But I also think the conventions of 1957 made it easier for a young woman to more clearly signal what she was and wasn’t willing to do. Here’s an example of what I mean: Today Andrew Klavan was talking about a woman whose agency sent her to Weinstein’s hotel room. In 1957, a young woman would have to have been working in the world’s oldest profession to be expected to interview for a job alone with a man in his hotel room.

    And here’s the thing: If you’re not willing to have sex with a Weinstein, it’s always better to avoid a situation in which he can proposition you in any but the most joking way, because Weinsteins really resent hearing “no”, especially if they imagine you signaled “yes”. And, of course, some Weinsteins are also rapists.

    • #76
  17. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Ansonia (View Comment):
    interview for a job alone with a man in his hotel room.

    True, I never was sent to a hotel room for an interview. However, I was called off the dance floor to “talk” to the guy who hired me, in a dressing room. I said, no, he said, “you’re outta here” and I grabbed my clothes and purse and walked out still in costume, telling him he will get it back. I wasn’t about to change clothes with him in the dressing room. I had been hired to dance in the chorus line of a Broadway musical. I never even went back for my 2 weeks pay.

    • #77
  18. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    You were a gutsy kid, Kay.

    And I might have an unrealistic idea of how much protection the conventions of the fifties gave to young women. Did anyone hear him ask you to talk to him in his dressing room?

    • #78
  19. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Ansonia (View Comment):
    Did anyone hear him ask you to talk to him in his dressing room?

    I don’t know, as I had already lost my hearing on the right side. I often don’t know who people are or what they are saying. Just calling my name and motioning me over was about all it was until he ushered me into the dressing room. I got worried then. Of course that was 60 years ago. I don’t know if I was a “gusty” kid, but I was obnoxious. Tell me to do something I didn’t want to do and I’d say no, on general principle.

    • #79
  20. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Re: comment 79

    You sensed something wrong with the set up. You were having none of it, and you weren’t about to be cornered.

    My sweet daughter, and my scrappy (and favorite) little niece seem different but would have the same reaction as you had in a similar situation. Thank God.

    • #80
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.