The Harvey Weinstein scandal and the New York Times fiasco

Author Jerome

At the beginning, this is a 100% serious drama full of moral courage.

On October 5, 2017, two female investigative reporters from the New York Times, Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, were under tremendous pressure to obtain exclusive rights. An astonishing story was told: A Hollywood film tycoon named Harvey Weinstein, for thirty years, has been a victim of many Hollywood ladies and has done a lot of misdeeds. Many people have been angry and dare not speak out for thirty years. This unbearable past in the United States has finally been bravely exposed by the flagship of the American newspaper industry.

This scandal has repeatedly appeared on the desks of major American media outlets for the past thirty years. Only the New York Times and its current editor-in-chief (Note 1) Dean Baquet, Brave This story was brought to the stage.

Harvey Weinstein, the majestic and rough beauty hunter, instantly fell into disgrace in Hollywood and was ruthlessly exiled. In order to highlight the academic nature of this article, Jerome ignored all the specific shocking and cliché pornographic jokes. Let’s search on Baidu using “Harvey Weinstein” as the keyword. If the disgusting details are not rich enough, you can use them again. English Google. If you have enough patience, you can also wait a moment, someone is already going to change Weinstein's story into a film and television series, which will be more lifelike.

Zero Two New York Times: Media umbrella?

The next day, October 6, 2017, New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote a rather solid column "Sexual Assault by Big Figures: The sad reality and strange silence of Hollywood." This is a Chinese translation title edited by the New York Times Chinese website. Frankly speaking, it is far less profound, in-depth, and straight to the point than the original English title. The original English title is very simple, it is this: "Harvey Weinstein’s Media Enablers". The Chinese title is full of gossip, and it happens to be missing the most important keyword "media". "The Sad Reality of Hollywood and the Weird Silence of the "Media"" is worthy of Cinda. Jim Lutenberg said the target is " media”, not Hollywood. As a stakeholder, it is normal for Hollywood to be silent on such nonsense. What is abnormal is that the American media has been silent for 30 years. Jerome's paraphrase may be more faithful to Jim Lutenberg: "Harvey Weinstein's Media Umbrella."

"Harvey Weinstein's Media Protection Umbrella" raises a very intriguing question: why has this Hollywood bully been able to run rampant for decades? What power supports him, condones him, and empowers him? Could, and ultimately destroy him? Jim Lutenberg’s question hits home. Of course, there is also a tendency of praise and self-praise in Jim Lutenberg’s subtext, and the sense of moral superiority that immediately belongs to me, The New York Times, emerges vividly on the page: All the media are horribly and strangely silent. , only the "New York Times" can do justice for heaven.

Jim Lutenberg’s original words are as follows: “Previously, no news organization had been able—or perhaps unwilling—to dig out and expose relevant details.” (Note: Quoted here. is the official translation of the New York Times Chinese website)

Wait, does it include the New York Times?

Before writing this sentence frivolously, Jim Lutenberg was probably full of ideas and had no time to think about it. Not only did he put almost all media in a separate volume, he also excluded the New York Times for granted. He may not have asked: Why has the ethically responsible New York Times remained eerily silent in the face of the sad reality of Hollywood for decades, only to suddenly rise up in October 2017?

What kind of logic does this follow?

In the past thirty years, has the New York Times never heard anything bad about Harvey Weinstein? According to "New York Times" investigative reporter Jodi Kanter's own experience, those scandals are an open secret in Hollywood. Didn’t the New York Times once, even once, have the heart to take a dip in this muddy water?

At least logically, it is completely impossible.

This is obviously not the case.

Although Jim Lutenberg is a veteran of The New York Times, he has only been a New York Times media columnist for a short time. He became a media columnist after David Carr, a famous New York Times reporter and highly respected by Jerome, suddenly collapsed in the office in early 2015. When he wrote the article "Harvey Weinstein's Media Protection Umbrella," he probably didn't know that David Carr was the Hollywood bully's sworn enemy in the press. He had tried to touch the tiger's butt at least twice, and... It's almost done. In 2004, New York Times editor-in-chief Bill Keller publicly recounted a fight between Harvey Weinstein and David Carr. Weinstein and his QC attorney David Boyce even came to Bill Keller specifically to complain. Who dares to get involved in a character like David Carr who is helpless against such willful big names?

Long story short.

So far, nothing has certainly surprised New York Times Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet. The New York Times has received numerous praises and recognitions, including praise from its own media columnists. The matter has become serious, and Hollywood is still going on a witch-hunting drama that everyone has vigorously exposed and criticized. More and more related and unrelated "sex bullies" who originally seemed to be highly respected in the entertainment industry, media industry, and technology circles have been brought to the surface, and a shocking picture has emerged. The daunting blacklist of American porn hunters is still being extended.

If things continue to develop like this, the New York Times' exclusive report will have a chance of winning the Pulitzer Prize next year as well as the Trump report. There are too many exclusives about Trump in the media, which makes the aesthetic tired, while the subject of Harvey Weinstein is too special and full of hormones.

However, Dean Baquet soon discovered that some things were not within his control. The trigger was Jim Lutenberg’s column “Harvey Weinstein’s Media Protection Umbrella.”

Two days later, on October 8, 2017, someone couldn’t stand the tone of the article and started to protest. She highly praised the New York Times for exposing Weinstein and applauded the efforts of the two female journalists. At the same time, she did not hesitate to write an article and bluntly accused the New York Times of being one of Harvey Weinstein’s media protection umbrellas. Once stood up to that sex bully. In the title, she directly named the New York Times: "Harvey Weinstein's media umbrella?" The New York Times is one of them.”

The basis of her accusation is her own personal experience 13 years ago. The New York Times, as the reporter, here became the person being reported by the former New York Times reporter.

The name of the person who angrily criticized the "New York Times" is Sharon Waxman, a former film and television reporter for the "New York Times" and the founder and editor-in-chief of the famous Hollywood entertainment news website Wrap. .

Sharon Waxman tells a jaw-dropping story: In 2004, as a New York Times reporter, she not only heard Harvey Weinstein’s open secrets like many Hollywood reporters; With the approval of the newspaper, he went to Italy and the United Kingdom in Europe as a New York Times reporter to interview relevant parties. The information she had at the time showed that Weinstein's sexual harassment activities mostly occurred at European film festivals and during his business trips to Europe. She interviewed one of Weinstein's victims face-to-face in London, who had signed a private confidentiality agreement with Weinstein and was therefore only willing to testify anonymously.

Sharon Waxman’s breakthrough was an Italian Fabrevi who had no experience in the film and television industry and was not involved in the film and television business at all. However, Disney’s payroll showed that he had an annual salary of more than 400,000 US dollars. Fabrizio Lombardo. He is the head of the Italian branch of Miramax Pictures.

Miramax Films, founded by the Weinstein brothers, was acquired by Disney in 1993 and became its subsidiary. The Weinstein brothers did not leave Miramax until 2005 and jointly founded Weinstein Brothers Pictures.

Fabrizio Lombardo was a long-time friend of Harvey Weinstein who was hired by Weinstein over the strong objections of Miramax executives.

Many people at Disney and Miramax disliked Lombardo, and several of them quietly reported it to New York Times film and television reporter Sharon Waxman.

With the New York Times’ status in the world, the film and television reporters of The New York Times are often fed all kinds of hard stuff. Reliable sources told Sharon Waxman that one of Lombardo's key missions was to satisfy Harvey Weinstein's seemingly insatiable need for women. The qualitative words used in Sharon Waxman's article are prostitutes and pimps. It's that direct.

Harvey Weinstein’s sex scandal is an open secret in the entertainment industry, and Sharon Waxman, like all film and television reporters, has heard about it for a long time. Now, the evidence is coming.

Sharon Waxman described in her article on October 8, 2017, that in 2004, Harvey Weinstein used all kinds of force to suppress her after hearing that she had written relevant reports. In addition to personally going to the New York Times to put pressure, they also asked famous movie star Matt Damon and others to call Sharon Waxman to "explain the situation."

As a result, the "New York Times" demonstrated its "resistance to pressure". Sharon Waxman's article was not shot, but was "gutted" (heart and lungs), and Finally published in the New York Times. However, that was no longer the revealing report that Sharon Waxman wanted to do. It was already a "clean version". All information pointing to Harvey Weinstein and prostitutes had been completely filtered out. Not to mention, that article The article also became almost a professional paean to Italian Fabrizio Lombardo, a layman in the film and television industry.

That strange article was incomprehensible and was hidden in the inside pages of a large pile of newspapers that day. Of course, it did not cause any waves. Jerome found the article. If it's interesting, you can read it yourself. What is certainly interesting is that in that article, there is the name of Harvey Weinstein, who is today’s Internet celebrity, and there are the names of Matt Damon and Russell Crowe. Of course, they are the only ones who are very fond of Fabrizio Lombardo. There are no splendid words of praise.

Sharon Waxman alleged 13 years later that the then "New York Times" culture editor (equivalent to the director of the literary and art department), and later became the New York Times deputy managing editor (deputy managing editor) editor Jonathan Landman said Weinstein had no reporting value. "He's not an elected official," Jonathan Landman, who left the New York Times in 2013 for a job at Bloomberg, told Sharon Waxman.

The 2004 article signed by Sharon Waxman but which she considered "gutted" was titled "Miramax sues ex-Italian executive who had two careers." As far as common sense is concerned, is it necessary or worthwhile for the New York Times to send reporters from its New York headquarters to travel thousands of miles to Rome and London for interviews? Such a piece of shit actually requires A-list big names like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Damon, Russell Crowe, etc. to endorse this fired Italian? Didn’t the New York Times executives frown when they signed Sharon Waxman’s large travel expense reimbursement?

This topic will develop very excitingly later.

This may be a special story, but it has been treated specially.

Sharon Waxman By the way, Harvey Weinstein was an important advertiser for the New York Times at the time. Data Jerome had access to showed that to this day, Weinstein still owes the New York Times more than $260,000 in advertising money, and the New York Times is still pursuing it.

Media columnist Jim Lutenberg, who is clearly unaware of the existence of the article "Miramax sues ex-Italian executive who had two careers" and its backstory, certainly should not be He was blamed for singing a high profile without any scruples, but he obviously did not know that his high profile would offend Sharon Waxman and trigger the absolute privacy of the New York Times.

Sharon Waxman accuses The New York Times of emasculating her exclusive expose on Harvey Weinstein 13 years after The New York Times exclusively exposed Harvey Weinstein 13 years later Stan scandal.

What is even more embarrassing is that the New York Times media columnist is still disparaging "every media" that remains silent, asking who is Harvey Weinstein's media umbrella, and according to Sha According to Ron Waxman, the New York Times may just be one of the silent media outlets that New York Times reporters have repeatedly tried to break (repeatedly, yes, repeatedly. More next time).

This montage spanning 13 years is full of metaphors.

The American media, which is full of awe for the "New York Times", known as the flagship of the American newspaper industry, is very excited no matter which end of the political spectrum or position they are in, and seems to have caught the "Grey Lady" "The little debater was full of cynicism.

If David Carr, the New York Times’s famed media columnist, were still alive, what would he have to say about such a montage? It is impossible for him to stand up and say anything again, but the fight between him and Weinstein that will be shown later will tell us that he may actually say something. The untold stories of this outstanding New York Times reporter and spokesman for the New York Times are fascinating, but they do not add to the glory of the New York Times.

Regardless, Dean Baquet showed supreme moral courage by supporting reporters and editors in exclusively exposing Hollywood sex-hunting bullies. But the huge shadow cast by Sharon Waxman’s New York Times story 13 years ago has lingered ever since.

Is Sharon Waxman telling the truth? The whole world has its eyes on The New York Times.

(To be continued. We will soon see the plot reverse. And then, reverse again. Evidence from all directions makes the story take twists and turns in unexpected ways. Your imagination, in reality In front of us, it may seem very pale. For example, we will soon see that the New York Times has an indissoluble bond with Weinstein. Weinstein’s long-term lawyer is also the representative of the New York Times. Lawyers have been trying every means to suppress the New York Times' Weinstein revelations for many years. This article is tens of thousands of words, and it may be difficult to read. It will be serialized in several times.)

Note. One: The New York Times does not have an editor-in-chief position. The executive editor is the top leader, the editor-in-chief. There are many ways to call the editor-in-chief in American newspapers. The one that is most relevant in Chinese is EIC, which stands for Editor In Chief. Some simply call them Editor, and most of them call them Executive Editor.