https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/ "The paper had a story on mogul’s sexual misconduct back in 2004 — but gutted it under pressure" " A whole lot of fur has been flying since last Thursday, when The New York Times published a game-changing investigative story about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct that in lightning speed brought the mogul to his knees. He apologized and took an immediate leave of absence from the company he co-founded, but that wasn’t enough. His board members and legal advisers have been resigning en masse. And as new, ugly details emerge of three decades of settlements for sex-related offenses, he’s quickly becoming a national pariah. I applaud The New York Times and writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for getting the story in print. I’m sure it was a long and difficult road. Also Read:What Does the Harvey Weinstein Scandal Mean for The Weinstein Co.? But I simply gagged when I 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.” That’s right, Jim. No one — including The New York Times. In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there. Also Read:Lisa Bloom Resigns as Adviser to Harvey Weinstein I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things. As head of Miramax Italy in 2003 and 2004, Fabrizio Lombardo was paid $400,000 for less than a year of employment. He was on the payroll of Miramax and thus the Walt Disney Company, which had bought the indie studio in 1993. I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts. Also Read:Harvey Weinstein's Scandal Turns Him From Democratic Player to Political Pariah At the time, he denied that he was on the payroll to help Weinstein with favors. From the story: “Reached in Italy, Mr. Lombardo declined to comment on the circumstances of his leaving Miramax or Ricucci, saying they were legal matters being handled by lawyers. ‘I am very proud of what we achieved at Miramax here in Italy,’ he said of his work for the film company. ‘It cannot be that they hired me because I’m a friend.'” I also tracked down a woman in London who had been paid off after an unwanted sexual encounter with Weinstein. She was terrified to speak because of her non-disclosure agreement, but at least we had evidence of a pay-off. The story I reported never ran. After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo 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 facts, and this was the Times. Right? Also Read:TV Reporter: Harvey Weinstein Masturbated in Front of Me Wrong. The story was stripped of any reference to sexual favors or coercion and buried on the inside of the Culture section, an obscure story about Miramax firing an Italian executive. Who cared? 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. At the time, Disney told me they had no idea Lombardo existed. A spokeswoman for the Times had no comment on Sunday. I was devastated after traveling to two countries and overcoming immense challenges to confirm at least part of the story that wound up running last week, more than a decade later. I had met in person with a woman who said she’d been paid off for an unwanted sexual encounter and thus proved she existed. Also Read:Harvey Weinstein Has No Case Against the New York Times, Legal Experts Say Today I wonder: If this story had come to light at the time, would Weinstein have continued his behavior for another decade, evidenced by the scathing 2015 memo by former staffer Lauren O’Connor unearthed by Kantor and Twohey. Writes Rutenberg: “Mr. Weinstein had his own enablers. He built his empire on a pile of positive press clippings that, before the internet era, could have reached the moon.” The New York Times was one of those enablers. So pardon me for having a deeply ambivalent response about the current heroism of the Times. Editors note: A previous version of this story stated that Jon Landman was a deputy managing editor at the Times. He left that position in 2013 to become an editor at large at Bloomberg View. TheWrap regrets the error."
Who cares, the Democrats will simply find another left wing movie mogul to finance their efforts. BTW, have you seen the crap that these Hollywood people are putting out? They will simply find another mediocre talent to replace him. Its not like the guy put out anything worthwhile.
Yes, we should elect a moral Conservative to the White House, that will teach these liberal Democrats about moral values.
What do you know, more fake news from RWNJ After former New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman wrote a piece claiming the newspaper killed a story on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct over a decade ago, the then-Times editor Jonathan Landman responded by suggesting Waxman’s story is false. “Sharon has now had more than a decade to pursue this story unencumbered by me or any New York Times editor. Why, if she had the goods on Weinstein in 2004, has she been unable or unwilling to publish something in the Wrap, where she was in charge? Could it be because she didn’t actually have the goods then, now or in between?” Landman said in an interview with Politico. Landman, who is now at Bloomberg View, had other concerns about Waxman’s account of the story. “I don’t remember the conversation Sharon cites. It seems pretty unlikely that it ever happened as she relates it because, really, I do know that you don’t have to be an elected official to be a public figure who is a legitimate focus of journalistic inquiry. I never met with Weinstein at the Times, and as far as I can recall have met him only once elsewhere, briefly, at a party in LA, where this issue obviously did not come up,” said Landman in an email to Politico. Additionally, according to both Landman and Waxman, her story on Weinstein cost The Times significant money in travel expenses, as well as a considerable amount of time, which caused Landman to raise the question, “If The Times had been intent on protecting Weinstein, wouldn’t it be odd to send a reporter to pursue this story on two continents, at considerable time and expense?” https://www.mediaite.com/print/form...ny-times-spiked-2004-weinstein-investigation/
In regards to "“Sharon has now had more than a decade to pursue this story unencumbered by me or any New York Times editor. Why, if she had the goods on Weinstein in 2004, has she been unable or unwilling to publish something in the Wrap, where she was in charge? Could it be because she didn’t actually have the goods then, now or in between?” Landman said in an interview with Politico." Let's read the update posted at the end of the original story for an explanation... "Update: Several have asked why I did not pursue the story once I started TheWrap. Fair question. Five years later, 2009, the moment had passed to go back and write the missing piece about Lombardo, who was no longer on the scene and whose story had been half-published in the Times. Miramax was no longer part of the Walt Disney Company. And I did not have sufficient evidence to write about a pay-off, even though I knew one existed. My focus was on raising money, building a website and starting a media company. In the subsequent years since then I did not hear about further pay-offs or harrassment and thought the issue was in the past. Weinstein had made a big effort, supposedly, to curb his temper and behavior, which was reflected in other areas of his public life." My entire question is why is Mediaite and the entire left-wing media attempting to defend Weinstein for his behavior and call any involved accuser/reporter a liar. If this was about a right-wing individual, Mediaite and other left-wing outlets would be crucifying the person.
it does not become fake news because one of those involved issues a very qualified denial. and this is one of those most likely bullshit denials with caveats as wide as weinstein... I don’t remember the conversation Sharon cites. It seems pretty unlikely that it ever happened as she relates it because, really, I do know that you don’t have to be an elected official to be a public figure who is a legitimate focus of journalistic inquiry. I never met with Weinstein at the Times, and as far as I can recall have met him only once elsewhere, briefly, at a party in LA, where this issue obviously did not come up,” said Landman in an email to Politico.
It was not just one denial, all involved parties said it was fake news. And why didn't Sharon publish the story herself? She had 13 years to do it. Total fake news and you Cons ate it up because of your persecution complex. All people have to do is to blame the media and you guys don't care if it's the truth or not.
Nobody knew nuttin. Hollywood is a tight little community where everyone knows everything about everyone else. Now they go all Sgt. Shultz on us. Leftists doing their level best to circle the wagons. Business as usual.