This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
The New Yorker
Ronan Farrow
Beyond Hollywood, he has exercised his influence as a prolific fund-raiser for Democratic Party candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weinstein combined a keen eye for promising scripts, directors, and actors with a bullying, even threatening, style of doing business
For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence.
Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now—Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old; some of them are older—has never come out.”
In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.
Three women—among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them... Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.
Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace.
Sixteen
They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models.
Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation.
“This was ongoing predatory behavior towards women—whether they consented or not.”
Ronan Farrow
Beyond Hollywood, he has exercised his influence as a prolific fund-raiser for Democratic Party candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weinstein combined a keen eye for promising scripts, directors, and actors with a bullying, even threatening, style of doing business
For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence.
Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now—Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old; some of them are older—has never come out.”
In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.
Three women—among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them... Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.
Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace.
Sixteen
They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models.
Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation.
“This was ongoing predatory behavior towards women—whether they consented or not.”
2barney67
JEFF ZELENY, CNN: It was an open secret in all these circles his behavior. The reality is, California is the biggest and most flush ATM for Democratic Politics in this country. He stood at the center of that. Nancy Pelosi put out a very short statement on this. But the reality is, most of the leaders of the Democratic party are beholden to him, have been beholden to him, and she still is the leader of the House Democrats here. Why not give an interview, give a press conference? They have personal relationships with Harvey Weinstein. This is hypocrisy this week, this is not a secret.
3barney67
How NBC ‘Killed’ Ronan Farrow’s Weinstein Exposé
Lloyd Grove
Freelance NBC News correspondent Ronan Farrow, whose months-long investigation into reports of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was spiked by the network but morphed into a journalistic blockbuster at The New Yorker, initiated a scuffle with the Peacock Network on Tuesday night.
Appearing on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show—which, like NBC, is a property of NBC Universal and its parent company Comcast—Farrow disputed what sources said was NBC News President Noah Oppenheim’s judgment this past summer that Farrow’s reporting on the movie mogul and the women he allegedly harassed and assaulted wasn’t ready for prime-time.
Addressing a controversy that has been percolating for the past several days in the media ecosystem since The New York Times published its own Weinstein exposé—including questions about whether NBC executives caved to the well-connected Weinstein and his formidable lawyers, Charles Harder, Lisa Bloom, and David Boies—Maddow brought it to a boiling point by telling Farrow: “NBC says that the story wasn’t publishable, that it wasn’t ready to go at the time that you brought it to them.”
Farrow fired back: “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that. And it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”
Farrow’s blunt claim highlighted an uncomfortable debate among NBC News insiders, and beyond, concerning the quality and status of his investigative reporting and the reasons why a respected television network would kill a sensational scoop about a famous, influential, politically wired, and undeniably newsworthy figure like Harvey Weinstein.
Lloyd Grove
Freelance NBC News correspondent Ronan Farrow, whose months-long investigation into reports of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was spiked by the network but morphed into a journalistic blockbuster at The New Yorker, initiated a scuffle with the Peacock Network on Tuesday night.
Appearing on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show—which, like NBC, is a property of NBC Universal and its parent company Comcast—Farrow disputed what sources said was NBC News President Noah Oppenheim’s judgment this past summer that Farrow’s reporting on the movie mogul and the women he allegedly harassed and assaulted wasn’t ready for prime-time.
Addressing a controversy that has been percolating for the past several days in the media ecosystem since The New York Times published its own Weinstein exposé—including questions about whether NBC executives caved to the well-connected Weinstein and his formidable lawyers, Charles Harder, Lisa Bloom, and David Boies—Maddow brought it to a boiling point by telling Farrow: “NBC says that the story wasn’t publishable, that it wasn’t ready to go at the time that you brought it to them.”
Farrow fired back: “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that. And it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”
Farrow’s blunt claim highlighted an uncomfortable debate among NBC News insiders, and beyond, concerning the quality and status of his investigative reporting and the reasons why a respected television network would kill a sensational scoop about a famous, influential, politically wired, and undeniably newsworthy figure like Harvey Weinstein.
4barney67
Clinton on Weinstein: "I Was Sick, I Was Shocked"; "Certainly" Didn't Know About His Sexual "Behavior"
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN: What was your reaction when you heard the news of Weinstein?
HILLARY CLINTON: I was sick. I was shocked, I was appalled. It was something that was just intolerable in every way. And, you know, like so many people who have come forward and spoken out, this was a different side of a person who I and many others had known in the past.
ZAKARIA: Would you have called him a friend?
CLINTON: Yes, I probably would have. And so would so many others. People in Democratic politics for a couple of decades appreciated his help and support. And I think these stories coming to light now, and people who never spoke out before having the courage to speak out, just clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged him cannot be tolerated and cannot be overlooked. And I'm hoping that the --
ZAKARIA: Do you think it was tolerated because he was powerful --
CLINTON: I don't know.
ZAKARIA: People say people knew.
CLINTON: Well, I certainly didn't and I don't know who did.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN: What was your reaction when you heard the news of Weinstein?
HILLARY CLINTON: I was sick. I was shocked, I was appalled. It was something that was just intolerable in every way. And, you know, like so many people who have come forward and spoken out, this was a different side of a person who I and many others had known in the past.
ZAKARIA: Would you have called him a friend?
CLINTON: Yes, I probably would have. And so would so many others. People in Democratic politics for a couple of decades appreciated his help and support. And I think these stories coming to light now, and people who never spoke out before having the courage to speak out, just clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged him cannot be tolerated and cannot be overlooked. And I'm hoping that the --
ZAKARIA: Do you think it was tolerated because he was powerful --
CLINTON: I don't know.
ZAKARIA: People say people knew.
CLINTON: Well, I certainly didn't and I don't know who did.
5barney67
CNN's Erin Burnett: Clinton "Was One Of The Last" To Denounce Harvey Weinstein
CNN: Hillary Clinton has released a statement condemning Harvey Weinstein after allegations of rape, abuse, and other forms of sexual misconduct against him mount.
Burnett said Hillary Clinton was "happy" to talk about sexism and misogyny at a recent book tour stop (after the Weinstein allegations broke) but "completely ignored Weinstein."
"It's good Clinton broke her silence. Of course, it is too bad she was one of the last to do so," she said.
CNN: Hillary Clinton has released a statement condemning Harvey Weinstein after allegations of rape, abuse, and other forms of sexual misconduct against him mount.
Burnett said Hillary Clinton was "happy" to talk about sexism and misogyny at a recent book tour stop (after the Weinstein allegations broke) but "completely ignored Weinstein."
"It's good Clinton broke her silence. Of course, it is too bad she was one of the last to do so," she said.
6barney67
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/opinions/harvey-weinstein-women-king-opinion/index....
CNN
Hotel rooms. Private meetings. Requests for massages or to watch him shower.
It's a script familiar to many women. And not just the ones on the receiving end of Harvey Weinstein's particularly odious brand of the Hollywood treatment.
But what's striking, other than just how long Weinstein seems to have gotten away with his myriad alleged crimes, are the similarities in the harrowing stories made by his multiple accusers, who now include such famous actresses as Gwyneth Paltrow, Heather Graham and Angelina Jolie.
As more and more women share their stories about Weinstein, and I believe there will be more, I hope that the chorus of their collective voices will highlight the importance of identifying and understanding the insidious language of abuse that is so often used to exploit, undermine and silence women.
CNN
Hotel rooms. Private meetings. Requests for massages or to watch him shower.
It's a script familiar to many women. And not just the ones on the receiving end of Harvey Weinstein's particularly odious brand of the Hollywood treatment.
But what's striking, other than just how long Weinstein seems to have gotten away with his myriad alleged crimes, are the similarities in the harrowing stories made by his multiple accusers, who now include such famous actresses as Gwyneth Paltrow, Heather Graham and Angelina Jolie.
As more and more women share their stories about Weinstein, and I believe there will be more, I hope that the chorus of their collective voices will highlight the importance of identifying and understanding the insidious language of abuse that is so often used to exploit, undermine and silence women.
7barney67
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carrie-stevens-oliver-stone-accusation_us_5...
A former Playboy centerfold model accused director Oliver Stone, who had defended Harvey Weinstein on Thursday, of molesting her when she was 22.
Actress and model Carrie Stevens, now 48, told HuffPost late Thursday that Stone “groped” her breast without her permission at a dinner party.
Stevens, who was Playboy’s Miss June 1997, described the encounter on her private social media pages Thursday night after seeing an interview with Stone published earlier in the day by The Hollywood Reporter. In it, Stone appeared to sympathize with Weinstein, who’s been accused of sexually harassing or assaulting dozens of women, by saying, “It’s not easy what he’s going through.”
Stone has since clarified his statement, saying now he is “appalled” by the accusations against the fired co-founder of The Weinstein Co. and was withdrawing from a television project involving the company, according to Variety.
“When I heard about Harvey, the first person I thought of was Oliver Stone, and it figures,” Stevens wrote in a private Facebook post seen by HuffPost. It includeed a link to The Hollywood Reporter’s interview with Stone.
Stevens told HuffPost the encounter with Stone took place in the 1990s.
“Oliver saw me where I was standing near the door and he just reached out and groped me, grabbed my boob like it was a toy or a hand you’d shake,” Stevens said. Then, she added, he “grinned a shit-eating grin and kept walking.”
A former Playboy centerfold model accused director Oliver Stone, who had defended Harvey Weinstein on Thursday, of molesting her when she was 22.
Actress and model Carrie Stevens, now 48, told HuffPost late Thursday that Stone “groped” her breast without her permission at a dinner party.
Stevens, who was Playboy’s Miss June 1997, described the encounter on her private social media pages Thursday night after seeing an interview with Stone published earlier in the day by The Hollywood Reporter. In it, Stone appeared to sympathize with Weinstein, who’s been accused of sexually harassing or assaulting dozens of women, by saying, “It’s not easy what he’s going through.”
Stone has since clarified his statement, saying now he is “appalled” by the accusations against the fired co-founder of The Weinstein Co. and was withdrawing from a television project involving the company, according to Variety.
“When I heard about Harvey, the first person I thought of was Oliver Stone, and it figures,” Stevens wrote in a private Facebook post seen by HuffPost. It includeed a link to The Hollywood Reporter’s interview with Stone.
Stevens told HuffPost the encounter with Stone took place in the 1990s.
“Oliver saw me where I was standing near the door and he just reached out and groped me, grabbed my boob like it was a toy or a hand you’d shake,” Stevens said. Then, she added, he “grinned a shit-eating grin and kept walking.”
8barney67
http://www.newsweek.com/harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-assault-683675
A Complete List of All the Women Accusing Harvey Weinstein, From Rose McGowan to Kate Beckinsale
A Complete List of All the Women Accusing Harvey Weinstein, From Rose McGowan to Kate Beckinsale
9barney67
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women. Apart from these three accusers, many other women have accused Clinton of consensual adultery.
Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape;
Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without consent;
Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her.
Charges of sexual misconduct somewhat gained heightened publicity during Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. In addition to these accusers, several other women have accused Clinton of consensual adultery.Of all the allegations made against him regarding his sexual history, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with
Monica Lewinsky and
Gennifer Flowers.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women. Apart from these three accusers, many other women have accused Clinton of consensual adultery.
Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape;
Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without consent;
Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her.
Charges of sexual misconduct somewhat gained heightened publicity during Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. In addition to these accusers, several other women have accused Clinton of consensual adultery.Of all the allegations made against him regarding his sexual history, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with
Monica Lewinsky and
Gennifer Flowers.
10barney67
Anthony Bourdain is right about Harvey Weinstein and Hillary Clinton
by Becket Adams | Oct 13, 2017, 9:37 AM
For some, including Bourdain, whose current girlfriend, Asia Argento, claims she was raped by Weinstein, Clinton came across Wednesday evening as less-than-genuine.
"And I have to say, Hillary's interview with Fareed Zakaria was shameful in its deflection and its disingenuousness," Bourdain said on Twitter. "Know what Hillary Clinton is NOT? She's not stupid. Or unsophisticated about the world. The Weinstein stories had been out there for years."
"Secretary Clinton was one of the most intelligent, well prepared, well briefed politicians ever. So, yes. I'd hoped for a better response," he added.
Bourdain, who is definitely no fan of the current administration, explained that his reaction was personal.
"I can assure you that the victims of Mr. Weinstein's three decades of predatory behavior are disappointed too. I'm sitting next to one," Bourdain said, referring to Argento. "This Weinstein story is deeply personal to me — and far far far more personal and painful to people I love and people I care about."
by Becket Adams | Oct 13, 2017, 9:37 AM
For some, including Bourdain, whose current girlfriend, Asia Argento, claims she was raped by Weinstein, Clinton came across Wednesday evening as less-than-genuine.
"And I have to say, Hillary's interview with Fareed Zakaria was shameful in its deflection and its disingenuousness," Bourdain said on Twitter. "Know what Hillary Clinton is NOT? She's not stupid. Or unsophisticated about the world. The Weinstein stories had been out there for years."
"Secretary Clinton was one of the most intelligent, well prepared, well briefed politicians ever. So, yes. I'd hoped for a better response," he added.
Bourdain, who is definitely no fan of the current administration, explained that his reaction was personal.
"I can assure you that the victims of Mr. Weinstein's three decades of predatory behavior are disappointed too. I'm sitting next to one," Bourdain said, referring to Argento. "This Weinstein story is deeply personal to me — and far far far more personal and painful to people I love and people I care about."
11lriley
There's not much doubt that Mr. Weinstein is a pig and should be in prison and/or going there very soon. That he gave money to at least a lot of democratic politicians hopefuls and to the DNC is incontrovertible.
The fact of the matter is though that Weinstien's sickening and serial predatory behavior over a lengthy period of time is not at all that dissimilar from the current occupant of the White House--the POTUS himself. If you're going to go on and on about Weinstein and Bill Clinton then you should at least acknowledge that sad fact as well. And if you're not going to acknowledge that Trump is as bad then you're not even worth talking to.
And by the way these kind of power plays don't just occur in Hollywood or politics. They're happening all the time and just about everywhere and it's mainly a privileged white male thing as is the case with all those named above.
The fact of the matter is though that Weinstien's sickening and serial predatory behavior over a lengthy period of time is not at all that dissimilar from the current occupant of the White House--the POTUS himself. If you're going to go on and on about Weinstein and Bill Clinton then you should at least acknowledge that sad fact as well. And if you're not going to acknowledge that Trump is as bad then you're not even worth talking to.
And by the way these kind of power plays don't just occur in Hollywood or politics. They're happening all the time and just about everywhere and it's mainly a privileged white male thing as is the case with all those named above.
13jjwilson61
On the other hand, there's no one with more experience of the damage of flagrant rumor mongering than Hillary Clinton, so maybe it's not surprising that she wouldn't take the rumors about Weinstein at face value.
14lriley
#12--yours is a good example of someone in denial.
#13--There are a lot of different examples of people using real power to abuse and mistreat others. The Roman Catholic church is just riddled with examples. Bill Cosby. It wouldn't be very hard to make a pretty long list.
#13--There are a lot of different examples of people using real power to abuse and mistreat others. The Roman Catholic church is just riddled with examples. Bill Cosby. It wouldn't be very hard to make a pretty long list.
15sturlington
It's interesting how now Democrats are responsible for everything other Democrats do, even if those things have nothing to do with politics. I guess if Jeffrey Dahmer was found to have voted for Clinton, then all Democrats would suddenly be pro cannibalism.
17barney67
>15 sturlington: You have a conveniently short memory. Not long ago every Republican was being called a racist because our current president, who has been a Republican for about thirty seconds, DIDN'T REACT STRONGLY ENOUGH to criticize a protest by a small group of yahoos in Charleston, West Virgina. If that isn't small beer.
Let's keep things in perspective.
Let's keep things in perspective.
19lriley
Should keep in mind the people who used to run Fox news like Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. Two beauts there.
21proximity1
>15 sturlington:
"It's interesting how now Democrats are responsible for everything other Democrats do, even if those things have nothing to do with politics."
Too "funny"!
Turmp was the target of systematic smearing over months of political campaigning by Democrats driven solely by the rationale that Trump could be defeated simply by portraying him as he supposedly is and long has been. (And think about it: the devoted starlets who were eager to see Hillary Clinton elected did and said not one word through all that time about one of the biggest Democratic party cash-machines: The Weinstein Company's co-founder, Harvey Weinstein.) That electoral campaign not only included things which either still today have or then had little or nothing to do with politics as such, but also numerous things in stories were simply flat fabrications completely devoid of any factual basis at all: Moscow hotel-room scenes supposedly video-taped in which Trump urinated on prostitutes. (*Ewwww! How could anyone vote for such a man!?*) Democrats used this utterly false allegation in an attempt to bully and shame Trump's supporters and others who might be tempted to vote for him by arguing quite expressly that, in voting for Trump or in any way supporting him or even just failing to loudly denounce him as morally beyond the pale, Trump supporters were indicating their own personal moral failing.
Now, that truly low, shameful and disgusting set of tactics used to try and win a presidential election is emblematic of the depravity of the kind of Democrats who were Hell-bent to keep Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination--breaking rules and laws was no bar.
These Democrats had one thing partially correct: the electorate was morally disgusted by so much about contemporary politics and politicians--so many of whom they hated. But much of the same public also hated the very mainstream news organizations which were the key mouth-pieces of Democratic power-centers. And what these Democrats could not even imagine was something that proved true: Enough voters, though personally not finding much at all to like about Trump, found Hillary Clinton even more thoroughly disgusting. And so, with that and running an amazingly stupid and tone-deaf campaign, the debutant Trump beat her using the Electoral College system she had no excuse to have failed to understand.
Really, the irony of DLC Democrats, thoroughly wedded to viciously stupid and sexistly and racistly dishonest "Identity politics"-presuppositions, is supreme:
The "I'm with Her" campaign took ocean-liners full of cash from Hollywood and First-class-stateroom-stuffed loads of that cash was raised and delivered by the networking of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein; had he worn an "I'm With Her" T-shirt, no one (except his many victims of sexual predation) should have thought twice about it. We were supposed to advance "the cause of women" everywhere by using Weinstein-cash to help elect Hillary Clinton to the office of the presidency.
Now, please-- go and re-read The Picture of Dorian Gray and think about our times.
"It's interesting how now Democrats are responsible for everything other Democrats do, even if those things have nothing to do with politics."
Too "funny"!
Turmp was the target of systematic smearing over months of political campaigning by Democrats driven solely by the rationale that Trump could be defeated simply by portraying him as he supposedly is and long has been. (And think about it: the devoted starlets who were eager to see Hillary Clinton elected did and said not one word through all that time about one of the biggest Democratic party cash-machines: The Weinstein Company's co-founder, Harvey Weinstein.) That electoral campaign not only included things which either still today have or then had little or nothing to do with politics as such, but also numerous things in stories were simply flat fabrications completely devoid of any factual basis at all: Moscow hotel-room scenes supposedly video-taped in which Trump urinated on prostitutes. (*Ewwww! How could anyone vote for such a man!?*) Democrats used this utterly false allegation in an attempt to bully and shame Trump's supporters and others who might be tempted to vote for him by arguing quite expressly that, in voting for Trump or in any way supporting him or even just failing to loudly denounce him as morally beyond the pale, Trump supporters were indicating their own personal moral failing.
Now, that truly low, shameful and disgusting set of tactics used to try and win a presidential election is emblematic of the depravity of the kind of Democrats who were Hell-bent to keep Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination--breaking rules and laws was no bar.
These Democrats had one thing partially correct: the electorate was morally disgusted by so much about contemporary politics and politicians--so many of whom they hated. But much of the same public also hated the very mainstream news organizations which were the key mouth-pieces of Democratic power-centers. And what these Democrats could not even imagine was something that proved true: Enough voters, though personally not finding much at all to like about Trump, found Hillary Clinton even more thoroughly disgusting. And so, with that and running an amazingly stupid and tone-deaf campaign, the debutant Trump beat her using the Electoral College system she had no excuse to have failed to understand.
Really, the irony of DLC Democrats, thoroughly wedded to viciously stupid and sexistly and racistly dishonest "Identity politics"-presuppositions, is supreme:
The "I'm with Her" campaign took ocean-liners full of cash from Hollywood and First-class-stateroom-stuffed loads of that cash was raised and delivered by the networking of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein; had he worn an "I'm With Her" T-shirt, no one (except his many victims of sexual predation) should have thought twice about it. We were supposed to advance "the cause of women" everywhere by using Weinstein-cash to help elect Hillary Clinton to the office of the presidency.
Now, please-- go and re-read The Picture of Dorian Gray and think about our times.
24RickHarsch
>24 RickHarsch: It's truly bizarre, even psychopathic, to try to use the Weinsten revelations against others. Unfeeling of horror, opportunism scums to the surface.
25proximity1
>24 RickHarsch:
"It's truly bizarre, even psychopathic, to try to use the Weinstein revelations against others. Unfeeling of horror, opportunism scums to the surface."
That would depend on the point of, the honesty of, the fairness of, such a use, wouldn't it?
Don't you use incidents as they properly apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view? And isn't the justificaion for that to be found in the validity of the presumed fact-set's proper and well-reasoned relationship?
So, for example, if the evidence indicates that, under Nazi Germany, many, many hundreds of thousands of people were rounded up and imprisoned in concentration/labor camp-prisons where they were worked until they starved or died of complications of abuse, that the victims were targeted for their having been correctly or incorrectly identified as homosexual, as communists, as belonging to some supposed ethnic group deemed racially inferior and, on these accounts, singled out for genocide--that might be used as a "black mark" against those respnsible, right? Such an example could be used as valid evidence of the reprehensible character of the parties in power in the government and, even, of the government itself, generally, as responsible for the decisions and acts which produced these incidents, used as a moral example in a debate, a discussion of some wider general point provided that the wider point was rightly related to the specific exampled case, couldn't it?
Not just any and every such "use" would be rightly deemed "opportunistic", would it? Some opportunities are validly seized are they not?--even as in different circumstances another opportunity might be taken for purposes or motives which are not honorable.
"It's truly bizarre, even psychopathic, to try to use the Weinstein revelations against others. Unfeeling of horror, opportunism scums to the surface."
That would depend on the point of, the honesty of, the fairness of, such a use, wouldn't it?
Don't you use incidents as they properly apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view? And isn't the justificaion for that to be found in the validity of the presumed fact-set's proper and well-reasoned relationship?
So, for example, if the evidence indicates that, under Nazi Germany, many, many hundreds of thousands of people were rounded up and imprisoned in concentration/labor camp-prisons where they were worked until they starved or died of complications of abuse, that the victims were targeted for their having been correctly or incorrectly identified as homosexual, as communists, as belonging to some supposed ethnic group deemed racially inferior and, on these accounts, singled out for genocide--that might be used as a "black mark" against those respnsible, right? Such an example could be used as valid evidence of the reprehensible character of the parties in power in the government and, even, of the government itself, generally, as responsible for the decisions and acts which produced these incidents, used as a moral example in a debate, a discussion of some wider general point provided that the wider point was rightly related to the specific exampled case, couldn't it?
Not just any and every such "use" would be rightly deemed "opportunistic", would it? Some opportunities are validly seized are they not?--even as in different circumstances another opportunity might be taken for purposes or motives which are not honorable.
26RickHarsch
>25 proximity1: You put far too much thought into trying to support something weightless. There is no connection between Weinstein-style sexual predation and the differentiation between Democrats and Republicans. So scum ahead if you like or feel the need to--or address one of the real problems of which this is emblematic. Try sexism, or the role of power in 'democracy' and how sexism exacerbates abuse of power, etc. Try to keep your mind on sexist predation one way or the other. And remember: a bad haircut maketh not necessarily the nazi.
27proximity1
>26 RickHarsch:
Since you didn't bother to deny it
--"Don't you use incidents as they properly apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view? And isn't the justificaion for that to be found in the validity of the presumed fact-set's proper and well-reasoned relationship?"--
I'll take your evasive non-responsive post >26 RickHarsch: as a veiled admission that yes, you do ---that is, you too feel free to use incidents as they may apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view since, obviously, that is precisely what you're doing here.
So, for your left-handed admission by omission, thank you.
RE: "You put far too much thought into trying to support something weightless."
You claim that but neither explain or support the claim.
"There is no connection between Weinstein-style sexual predation and the differentiation between Democrats and Republicans."
Perhaps that's true. It's hardly relevant since I hadn't claimed that there was necessarily a "connection" between Weinstein-style sexual predation and the differentiation between Democrats and Republicans." (Emphasis added.)
Better to put "too much thought in" than far from enough thought.
RE:
"Try sexism, or the role of power in 'democracy' and how sexism exacerbates abuse of power, etc"
"Sexism" comes in all stripes and flavors and women are no strangers to its practice--just observe the comments at this site. So, 'democracy' or not, men and women are routinely sexist in their uses and abuses of their power and women, as a class, have far more and more significant, power today than at any time in modern history. As for sexism "exacerbating" the "abuse of power" this suggests that you actually assume that, for example, had Harvey Weinstein also routinely abused his power in cases which concerned young aspiring male actors who for some reason entirely apart from a sexual aspect he found less than compliant, that abuse you'd classify as less blame-worthy than his instances where he solicits mutual nude massages from attractive young aspiring actresses (who naively agree to private meetings with him in his hotel room to "discuss their careers.")
Did any of these actresses accept the invitations in the hope--avowed or not-- that, privately, they might come to some arrangements with H. Weinstein by which the actresses' careers were advanced thanks to Weinstein's personal 'thumb-on-the-scale' to help them? I wonder. Otherwise, what was the reasoning and motivation of these young women?--and, when it concerned them, of these young men?
"Try to keep your mind on sexist predation one way or the other."
Try to keep yours on rank hypocrisy and its tendency to undermine an otherwise valid or interesting point..
Since you didn't bother to deny it
--"Don't you use incidents as they properly apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view? And isn't the justificaion for that to be found in the validity of the presumed fact-set's proper and well-reasoned relationship?"--
I'll take your evasive non-responsive post >26 RickHarsch: as a veiled admission that yes, you do ---that is, you too feel free to use incidents as they may apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view since, obviously, that is precisely what you're doing here.
So, for your left-handed admission by omission, thank you.
RE: "You put far too much thought into trying to support something weightless."
You claim that but neither explain or support the claim.
"There is no connection between Weinstein-style sexual predation and the differentiation between Democrats and Republicans."
Perhaps that's true. It's hardly relevant since I hadn't claimed that there was necessarily a "connection" between Weinstein-style sexual predation and the differentiation between Democrats and Republicans." (Emphasis added.)
Better to put "too much thought in" than far from enough thought.
RE:
"Try sexism, or the role of power in 'democracy' and how sexism exacerbates abuse of power, etc"
"Sexism" comes in all stripes and flavors and women are no strangers to its practice--just observe the comments at this site. So, 'democracy' or not, men and women are routinely sexist in their uses and abuses of their power and women, as a class, have far more and more significant, power today than at any time in modern history. As for sexism "exacerbating" the "abuse of power" this suggests that you actually assume that, for example, had Harvey Weinstein also routinely abused his power in cases which concerned young aspiring male actors who for some reason entirely apart from a sexual aspect he found less than compliant, that abuse you'd classify as less blame-worthy than his instances where he solicits mutual nude massages from attractive young aspiring actresses (who naively agree to private meetings with him in his hotel room to "discuss their careers.")
Did any of these actresses accept the invitations in the hope--avowed or not-- that, privately, they might come to some arrangements with H. Weinstein by which the actresses' careers were advanced thanks to Weinstein's personal 'thumb-on-the-scale' to help them? I wonder. Otherwise, what was the reasoning and motivation of these young women?--and, when it concerned them, of these young men?
"Try to keep your mind on sexist predation one way or the other."
Try to keep yours on rank hypocrisy and its tendency to undermine an otherwise valid or interesting point..
28RickHarsch
>27 proximity1: See if this is clear enough: You are wrong. You wrote: "Don't you use incidents as they properly apply to illustrating or serving as evidence of some arguable point of view?" As that has no application to this discussion there is no point in addressing it. If you want to call me a hypocrite, please clearly explain how I am being hypocritical. Forget the fucking TOS and say what you want to say. For instance, I think your bizarre need to make a point that has nothing to do with rape and sexism out of the Weinstein case is swinish. So: I think you are a pig. See? Easily done.
29proximity1
>28 RickHarsch:
Here is as clear a statement of it as I can put:
You, too, are shamelessly (and apparently blindly) "using" the Weinstein revelations and in your case, as in that of so many others who call themselves liberals, you're doing it in a blatantly sexist manner. You're concerned about and solely about this type of infamous Hollywood practice. As for all that goes with it--and that includes adult men and women kicking, biting, clawing their way against all competitors to their place in the sun-drenched lap of luxury, you clearly don't care. That's why, until this mess blew up you'd have voted for Hillary Clinton--and maybe even now, in spite of it, you'd still vote for Hillary Clinton-- despite the photos of her making fund-raising kissy-face with Harvey Weinstein--about whom Mrs. Clinton is shocked!--shocked, she says to find that studio producer Weinstein tries to sexually capitalize on his power position to satisfy his very large appetites for the comfort-company of beautiful aspiring actresses.
You condemn Weinstein-style sexism--as you yourself put it--in its special and narrow particularlity. That is, you and others like you are inviting us all to join you in this narrowly drawn outrage which is special to young, attractive aspiring actresses of the sort who Weinstein would invite to private meetings in his hotel rooms. As deplorable as all such behavior is on Weinstein's part, this focus confines us to a rather small little wading-area in the far larger cesspool in which Hollywood's elite film power-weilders have long dwelled.
To that, I say, get a lawyer, get an agent and, while you're at it, ladies, get a life. What did you suppose Mr. Weinstein wanted in asking you--young, aspiring, beautiful and sexy --and you not only know it, you are positively counting on trading on it for the achievement of your hoped-for fame and wealth!--and essentially an as-yet-unknown entity--to meet him alone in his hotel room?! As relative noboddies, you wanted to see Mr. Weinstein in hopes that he'd agree to boost your career. What in the world did you imagine that a private hotel-room meeting had to do legitimately and respectably with any of that?
Now, to the rest of you, I ask: Have we heard from any actresses who, in reply to Mr. Weinstein's overture, answered that they were happy to meet him at his hotel in the lobby, in the restuarant or, if need be, in his hotel room but, in the latter case, only on the condition that they be accompanied by their lawyer or their professional agent? We haven't? Why not? ( Had even one actress done that, is there anyone here who is in doubt about the result it would have produced on Weinstein's part? Anyone who fails to recognize that, under such a precondition, there'd have been no meeting at all? Isn't that why, after all, those who decided to take the meeting did not impose any such condition?) Did none answer in that way? Why not? How many generations now has Hollywood been known as, been infamous for being, a moral viper's nest? a cesspool of cut-throat, do-or-die competition?
Was there not a single actress with the presence of mind and the heightened antenae to detect the unsavory, lecherous potential of such a meeting? I find that nothing short of amazing and a bit beyond credible.
O Thespēs, Nota bene: "Cave lascīviae"
Here is as clear a statement of it as I can put:
You, too, are shamelessly (and apparently blindly) "using" the Weinstein revelations and in your case, as in that of so many others who call themselves liberals, you're doing it in a blatantly sexist manner. You're concerned about and solely about this type of infamous Hollywood practice. As for all that goes with it--and that includes adult men and women kicking, biting, clawing their way against all competitors to their place in the sun-drenched lap of luxury, you clearly don't care. That's why, until this mess blew up you'd have voted for Hillary Clinton--and maybe even now, in spite of it, you'd still vote for Hillary Clinton-- despite the photos of her making fund-raising kissy-face with Harvey Weinstein--about whom Mrs. Clinton is shocked!--shocked, she says to find that studio producer Weinstein tries to sexually capitalize on his power position to satisfy his very large appetites for the comfort-company of beautiful aspiring actresses.
You condemn Weinstein-style sexism--as you yourself put it--in its special and narrow particularlity. That is, you and others like you are inviting us all to join you in this narrowly drawn outrage which is special to young, attractive aspiring actresses of the sort who Weinstein would invite to private meetings in his hotel rooms. As deplorable as all such behavior is on Weinstein's part, this focus confines us to a rather small little wading-area in the far larger cesspool in which Hollywood's elite film power-weilders have long dwelled.
To that, I say, get a lawyer, get an agent and, while you're at it, ladies, get a life. What did you suppose Mr. Weinstein wanted in asking you--young, aspiring, beautiful and sexy --and you not only know it, you are positively counting on trading on it for the achievement of your hoped-for fame and wealth!--and essentially an as-yet-unknown entity--to meet him alone in his hotel room?! As relative noboddies, you wanted to see Mr. Weinstein in hopes that he'd agree to boost your career. What in the world did you imagine that a private hotel-room meeting had to do legitimately and respectably with any of that?
Now, to the rest of you, I ask: Have we heard from any actresses who, in reply to Mr. Weinstein's overture, answered that they were happy to meet him at his hotel in the lobby, in the restuarant or, if need be, in his hotel room but, in the latter case, only on the condition that they be accompanied by their lawyer or their professional agent? We haven't? Why not? ( Had even one actress done that, is there anyone here who is in doubt about the result it would have produced on Weinstein's part? Anyone who fails to recognize that, under such a precondition, there'd have been no meeting at all? Isn't that why, after all, those who decided to take the meeting did not impose any such condition?) Did none answer in that way? Why not? How many generations now has Hollywood been known as, been infamous for being, a moral viper's nest? a cesspool of cut-throat, do-or-die competition?
Was there not a single actress with the presence of mind and the heightened antenae to detect the unsavory, lecherous potential of such a meeting? I find that nothing short of amazing and a bit beyond credible.
O Thespēs, Nota bene: "Cave lascīviae"
30RickHarsch
Dear Snorter, Read the opening line, the Latin at the end. Address further complaints to the young man by the waste basket.
32RickHarsch
> 31 Perfect one to show you where the truffles are
33proximity1
>30 RickHarsch: Stupid, clownish, non-responsive nonsense.
I call my next witness.
Q. : Would you please state your name and your occupation for the record?
A. : Scott Rosenberg, screen-writer.
Q. : Did you know the accused, Harvey Weinstein?
A.: I did.
Q.: Would you describe for us your experience in working with him?
I call my next witness.
Q. : Would you please state your name and your occupation for the record?
A. : Scott Rosenberg, screen-writer.
Q. : Did you know the accused, Harvey Weinstein?
A.: I did.
Q.: Would you describe for us your experience in working with him?
‘Beautiful Girls’ Scribe Scott Rosenberg On A Complicated Legacy With Harvey Weinstein ( From "Deadline.com" by Mike Fleming Jr
October 16, 2017 3:26pm )
S.R. :
So, uh, yeah.
We need to talk about Harvey.
I was there, for a big part of it.
(M.F.Jr.) :
From, what, 1994 to the early 2000s?
S.R.:
Something like that.
Certainly The Golden Age.
The “PULP FICTION”, “SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE”, “CLERKS”, “SWINGERS”, “SCREAM”, “GOOD WILL HUNTING”, “ENGLISH PATIENT”, “LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL” years…
Harvey and Bob made my first two movies.
Then they signed me to an overall deal.
Then they bought that horror script of mine about the Ten Plagues.
For a lot of money.
Also bought that werewolf-biker script.
That no one else liked but was my personal favorite.
They were going to publish my novel.
They anointed me.
Made it so other studios thought I was the real deal.
They gave me my career.
I was barely 30.
I was sure I had struck gold.
They loved me, these two brothers, who had reinvented cinema.
And who were fun and tough and didn’t give an East Coast fuck about all the slick pricks out in L.A.
And those glory days in Tribeca?
The old cramped offices?
That wonderful gang of executives and assistants?
All the filmmakers who were doing repeat business?
The brothers wanted to create a “family of film”.
And they did just that…
We looked forward to having meetings there.
Meetings that would turn into plans that would turn into raucous nights out on the town.
Simply put: OG Miramax was a blast.
(...snip...)
Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing:
Everybody-fucking-knew.
Not that he was raping.
No, that we never heard.
But we were aware of a certain pattern of overly-aggressive behavior that was rather dreadful.
We knew about the man’s hunger; his fervor; his appetite.
There was nothing secret about this voracious rapacity; like a gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm.
(...snip...)
Because everybody-fucking-knew.
And do you know how I am sure this is true?
Because I was there.
And I saw you.
And I talked about it with you.
You, the big producers; you, the big directors; you, the big agents; you, the big financiers.
And you, the big rival studio chiefs; you, the big actors; you, the big actresses; you, the big models.
You, the big journalists; you, the big screenwriters; you, the big rock stars; you, the big restaurateurs; you, the big politicians.
I saw you.
All of you.
God help me, I was there with you.
Again, maybe we didn’t know the degree.
The magnitude of the awfulness.
Not the rapes.
Not the shoving against the wall.
Not the potted-plant fucking.
But we knew something.
We knew something was bubbling under.
Something odious.
Something rotten.
But…
And this is as pathetic as it is true:
What would you have had us do?
Who were we to tell?
The authorities?
What authorities?
The press?
Harvey owned the press.
The Internet?
There was no Internet or reasonable facsimile thereof.
Should we have called the police?
And said what?
Should we have reached out to some fantasy Attorney General Of Movieland?
That didn’t exist.
Not to mention, most of the victims chose not to speak out.
Aside from sharing the grimy details with a close girlfriend or confidante.
And if they discussed it with their representatives?
Agents and managers, who themselves feared The Wrath Of The Big Man?
The agents and managers would tell them to keep it to themselves.
Because who knew the repercussions?
That old saw “You’ll Never Work In This Town Again” came crawling back to putrid life like a re-animated cadaver in a late-night zombie flick.
But, yes, everyone knew someone who had been on the receiving end of lewd advances by him.
Or knew someone who knew someone.
A few actress friends of mine told me stories: of a ghastly hotel meeting; of a repugnant bathrobe-shucking; of a loathsome massage request.
And although they were rattled, they sort of laughed at his arrogance; how he had the temerity to think that simply the sight of his naked, doughy, carbuncled flesh was going to get them in the mood.
So I just believed it to be a grotesque display of power; a dude misreading the room and making a lame-if-vile pass.
It was much easier to believe that.
It was much easier for ALL of us to believe that.
Because…
And here’s where the slither meets the slime:
Harvey was showing us the best of times.
He was making our movies.
Throwing the biggest parties.
Taking us to The Golden Globes!
Introducing us to the most amazing people (Meetings with Vice President Gore! Clubbing with Quentin and Uma! Drinks with Salman Rushdie and Ralph Fiennes! Dinners with Mick Jagger and Warren-freaking-Beatty!).
The most epic Oscar weekends.
That seemed to last for weeks!
Sundance! Cannes! Toronto!
Telluride! Berlin! Venice!
Private jets! Stretch limousines! Springsteen shows!
Hell, Harvey once took me to St. Barth’s for Christmas.
For 12 days!
I was a broke-ass kid from Boston who had never even HEARD of St. Barth’s before he booked my travel.
He once got me tickets to the seven hottest Broadway shows in one week. So I could take a new girlfriend on a dazzling tour of theater.
He got me seats on the 40-yard-line to the Super Bowl, when the Patriots were playing the Packers in New Orleans.
Even got me a hotel room, which was impossible to get that weekend.
He gave and gave and gave and gave.
He had a monarch’s volcanic generosity when it came to those within his circle.
And a Mafia don’s fervent need for abject loyalty from his capos and soldiers.
(...snip...)
So, yeah, I am sorry.
Sorry and ashamed.
Because, in the end, I was complicit.
I didn’t say shit.
I didn’t do shit.
Harvey was nothing but wonderful to me.
So I reaped the rewards and I kept my mouth shut.
And for that, once again, I am sorry.
But you should be sorry, too.
With all these victims speaking up…
To tell their tales.
Shouldn’t those who witnessed it from the sidelines do the same?
Instead of retreating to the cowardly, canopied confines of faux-outrage?
Doesn’t being a bystander bring with it the responsibility of telling the truth, however personally disgraceful it may be?
You know who are.
You know that you knew.
And do you know how I know that you knew?
Because I was there with you.
And because everybody-fucking-knew.
34barney67
Skeet Ulright In an interview with Cosmopolitan:
"I knew. Most people knew. I had dinner with someone who is one of the most famous women on the planet — I won't say who it is — who has not come out, who told me similar things.… There is nothing you can do. I mean, what am I gonna do? I can't step up, certainly then, on allegations. Honestly, and I think it's what most people faced: How do you cut your livelihood from a very powerful corporation on something that you don't know what the facts are?"
"I knew. Most people knew. I had dinner with someone who is one of the most famous women on the planet — I won't say who it is — who has not come out, who told me similar things.… There is nothing you can do. I mean, what am I gonna do? I can't step up, certainly then, on allegations. Honestly, and I think it's what most people faced: How do you cut your livelihood from a very powerful corporation on something that you don't know what the facts are?"
35proximity1
>34 barney67:
And that's essentially the perennial problem here. This concerns, one, power-relations--a factor which is no respecter of gender--and, two, instinctual sexual drives which, in some individuals, go well beyond the socially-acceptable but sometimes even then still don't meet the minimum threshold for definition as a criminal act. Rumors about such activity targeting others circulate. But, without direct personal knowledge of the fac ts, there is little that one can actually do other than passing warnings to the remaining unsuspecting potential victims --and this was done--unless those in the seats of ultimate authority would act if alerted. Typically, either they won't act for a variety of reasons or the individual who is the perpetrator is himself or herself also the ultimate authority.
At some point, the actual and the potential victims have to make a judgment of a self-preservation type:
"do I take this meeting under these circumstances? What are the dangers to me if I do? Am I going to accept this risk? Am I prepared for some set of ugly circumstances and, if they arise, what, in various cases, shall be my courses of action? Am I prepared for the emotional fall-out of a meeting gone badly wrong?"
Rape is one thing--a criminal offense. But it ususally doesn't take place in the open view of cameras or witnesses. Thus, it will be the victims' word against that of the denying accused rapist. Shucking a bathrobe and asking for or offering a nude massge is another. Both are traumatic in most situations--certainly such as those concerned here. But the latter is not a criminal offense; neither is offering to grant favors in return for compliance to requests for sexual favors nor the declaration that, given a refusal to grant such favors, the movie-mogul won't help and instead might or shall actually hinder the career-interests of the person who refuses to go along and do what is asked or proposed.
Yes, all this is very ugly stuff. But it's the stock stuff of Hollywood--a place where the dominant industry is film-making; by its very nature that includes some who make and sell sexually-titilating products, appealing to the public's appetites for portrayals of fame, wealth, glamor and sex-appeal; that industry by its nature trades in physical sex-appeal and even the actors and actresses who are the objective raw-material of this trade must at some point, on some level, recognize the kind of enterprise they propose to engage in to earn their livings.
Sometimes, too, the choice is a stark one: either one assumes the career risks of speaking up (and this isn't confined to the film-entertainment industry), speaking out personally, refusing to give silent cover to malefactors, or one remains silent publicly and only speaks, if at all, privately. That leaves the situation unrevealed and free to go on. This, in the main, is what has happened. It's a case of having to either stand up and, with guts and courage, speak out and accept the consequences or remain silent and learn from terrible experience what not to do again.
We are no more going to definitively root out the matter of the basics of power-relations as a social problem of interpersonal conflicts which come with such industries than we're going to eliminate instinctual sexual drives' sometimes running amok--without crossing the line of criminal behavior-- among those who include some of society's most powerful and intractable people. As though to implicitly recognize the impossibility of such an expectation, there's a lot of virtue-signaling going on around this episode and, as part of this, an implied view that everyone must experience and exhibit a proper degree of moral outrage--and the virtue-signalers insist that they'll be the judges of that proper degree. This instance is one more in a series of variations on one of the most characteristic themes as source of contemporary social conflict and division.
36barney67
Why Did Fashion Ignore Terry Richardson’s Sexual Misconduct for Over a Decade?
By Francesca Friday • 10/26/17
Amidst the aftershocks of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, with more and more Hollywood women coming out of the woodwork with horrific stories, the fashion industry has stumbled upon a scandal of its own in Terry Richardson. To call the emerging news of the renowned, now infamous photographer a scandal seems like a euphemism; like in Weinstein’s case, the signs were not only there, but had warped into a cultural and industrial norm.
Although his behavior reflected that of a foolhardy criminal, dismissing all caution because he knew he was on the verge of discovery anyway, it wasn’t recklessness that led to the escalation of Richardson’s conduct from bad to worse. He was enabled by an industry that had adapted to sexual harassment, contorting its social rules to accommodate a top talent—the photographic visionary that brought an unreplicable mix of ingenuity, artistry and sexuality to every portrait. It wasn’t until an email by James Woolhouse, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Condé Nast International, to the publishing powerhouse’s global vice presidents advising them to cease all business collaborations with Richardson, was made public, that the industry seemed to take his well-known behavior seriously.
“Condé Nast has nothing planned with him going forward. Sexual harassment of any kind is unacceptable and should not be tolerated,” a Condé Nast International representative told Business of Fashion.
Though this is a wise and thoughtful decision on behalf of Woolhouse, the question remains: why was a decade of alleged sexual misconduct between Richardson and models on-set able to fester and worsen, until a powerful magazine executive decided to fire off a single email? Similarly, it was only this past week that the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) updated a website page about their Health Initiative to provide resources and support for reporting sexual assault in the industry.
The volcanic level of allegations of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct (over fifty actresses and women in entertainment have come forward so far) drew the eye of the mainstream media to the sexism and abuse that had been overshadowed by money and the influence of powerful men for far too long.
Like Weinstein, Richardson is an industry legend. He’s shot Kate Moss, Gisele Bundchen, Cara Delevingne and Miranda Kerr, but also Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama. He’s directed music videos for Beyoncé, redefined fashion photography with his signature, often explicit style, and worked with almost every major fashion house and magazine in the biz.
Almost as far-reaching as his artistic legacy are the complaints of abuse; allegations against Richardson go back as far as 2001. Among the most disturbing are reports of coercing young models into sexual acts, images of an intern performing oral sex on him and models being ejaculated on by Richardson for photographs.
Richardson’s response to over a decade of these accusations can be best summarized in a comment his spokeswoman made to Buzzfeed: “He is an artist who has been known for his sexually explicit work so, many of his professional interactions with subjects were sexual and explicit in nature but all of the subjects of his work participated consensually.”
The word consensual can make or break a career, depending on how it is interpreted. Richardson uses it as an advantage, rather than a scapegoat, a term whose definition provides a convenient grey area when things get messy.
In 2014, Richardson wrote a letter titled “Correcting the Rumors” to The Huffington Post, which defended his behavior and downplayed his indiscretions by equating them with those of other powerful industry photographers.
“Like Robert Mapplethorpe, Helmut Newton and so many others before me, sexual imagery has always been a part of my photography,” he wrote. “I have never used an offer of work or a threat of rebuke to coerce someone into something that they did not want to do.”
As the Weinstein case paves the way for the prosecution of men who abuse their power for sexual gain, the rumors have not only been corrected, but confirmed.
By Francesca Friday • 10/26/17
Amidst the aftershocks of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, with more and more Hollywood women coming out of the woodwork with horrific stories, the fashion industry has stumbled upon a scandal of its own in Terry Richardson. To call the emerging news of the renowned, now infamous photographer a scandal seems like a euphemism; like in Weinstein’s case, the signs were not only there, but had warped into a cultural and industrial norm.
Although his behavior reflected that of a foolhardy criminal, dismissing all caution because he knew he was on the verge of discovery anyway, it wasn’t recklessness that led to the escalation of Richardson’s conduct from bad to worse. He was enabled by an industry that had adapted to sexual harassment, contorting its social rules to accommodate a top talent—the photographic visionary that brought an unreplicable mix of ingenuity, artistry and sexuality to every portrait. It wasn’t until an email by James Woolhouse, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Condé Nast International, to the publishing powerhouse’s global vice presidents advising them to cease all business collaborations with Richardson, was made public, that the industry seemed to take his well-known behavior seriously.
“Condé Nast has nothing planned with him going forward. Sexual harassment of any kind is unacceptable and should not be tolerated,” a Condé Nast International representative told Business of Fashion.
Though this is a wise and thoughtful decision on behalf of Woolhouse, the question remains: why was a decade of alleged sexual misconduct between Richardson and models on-set able to fester and worsen, until a powerful magazine executive decided to fire off a single email? Similarly, it was only this past week that the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) updated a website page about their Health Initiative to provide resources and support for reporting sexual assault in the industry.
The volcanic level of allegations of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct (over fifty actresses and women in entertainment have come forward so far) drew the eye of the mainstream media to the sexism and abuse that had been overshadowed by money and the influence of powerful men for far too long.
Like Weinstein, Richardson is an industry legend. He’s shot Kate Moss, Gisele Bundchen, Cara Delevingne and Miranda Kerr, but also Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama. He’s directed music videos for Beyoncé, redefined fashion photography with his signature, often explicit style, and worked with almost every major fashion house and magazine in the biz.
Almost as far-reaching as his artistic legacy are the complaints of abuse; allegations against Richardson go back as far as 2001. Among the most disturbing are reports of coercing young models into sexual acts, images of an intern performing oral sex on him and models being ejaculated on by Richardson for photographs.
Richardson’s response to over a decade of these accusations can be best summarized in a comment his spokeswoman made to Buzzfeed: “He is an artist who has been known for his sexually explicit work so, many of his professional interactions with subjects were sexual and explicit in nature but all of the subjects of his work participated consensually.”
The word consensual can make or break a career, depending on how it is interpreted. Richardson uses it as an advantage, rather than a scapegoat, a term whose definition provides a convenient grey area when things get messy.
In 2014, Richardson wrote a letter titled “Correcting the Rumors” to The Huffington Post, which defended his behavior and downplayed his indiscretions by equating them with those of other powerful industry photographers.
“Like Robert Mapplethorpe, Helmut Newton and so many others before me, sexual imagery has always been a part of my photography,” he wrote. “I have never used an offer of work or a threat of rebuke to coerce someone into something that they did not want to do.”
As the Weinstein case paves the way for the prosecution of men who abuse their power for sexual gain, the rumors have not only been corrected, but confirmed.
37barney67
Journalist Mark Halperin leaves NBC after sexual harassment allegations
BY Jessica Chia
Veteran journalist Mark Halperin has left his gig at NBC after being accused of sexually harassing five women.
Halperin, 52, allegedly grabbed a colleague’s breasts, pressed his genitals against three women, and propositioned other co-workers for sex during his time of political director of ABC, according to five women who spoke to CNN.
Halperin, who worked as a political analyst for NBC and MSNBC, issued an apology on Wednesday, although he denied grabbing a woman’s breasts and pressing his genitals against three women.
“During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me. I now understand from these accounts that my behavior was inappropriate and caused others pain,” Halperin said.
“For that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize. Under the circumstances, I’m going to take a step back from my day-to-day work while I properly deal with this situation,” he added.
That step back later became a departure, with NBC saying in a statement "we find the story and the allegations very troubling."
"Mark Halperin is leaving his role as a contributor until the questions around his past are fully understood," the network told a CNN reporter.
Emily Miller, currently with One America News Network, on Thursday tweeted she was “was ANOTHER junior ABC employee he attacked.”
“I did not report Halperin to ABC because I thought I was the only one, and I blamed myself, and I was embarrassed and I was scared of him,” she wrote.
Her remarks came after the five other women spoke to CNN about their experiences with Halperin at ABC.
One unidentified woman said Halperin forcibly kissed her, grabbed her breasts, and pressed his genitals against her body during a meeting in his office in the early 2000s, CNN reported.
Another woman shared a similar account, saying she was seated in his office when he approached from behind and “pressed his body on mine, his penis, on my shoulder,” she told cable network.
The former ABC News employee went on to work with Halperin on the 2004 campaign trail and said he would continue to proposition her by asking, “Why don’t you meet me upstairs?”
Two other women also claimed Halperin propositioned them while they were traveling together for work.
A fifth woman alleged Halperin was clothed when he placed his erect penis against her body without her consent.
Halperin went on to work for Time magainze, when he chronicled the 2008 Presidential election in the 2010 book “Game Change” with fellow journalist John Heilemann, along with “Double Down” about the 2012 race.
The blockbuster “Game Change” was turned into an HBO movie featuring Julianne Moore in a critically acclaimed portrayal of Sarah Palin.
The hype landed the pair a show on Bloomberg in 2014, where the duo oversaw the business network’s political coverage. Halperin announced in January 2017 he’d left Bloomberg.
Halperin is the latest figure to face sexual harassment allegations after dozens of women spoke out against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.
BY Jessica Chia
Veteran journalist Mark Halperin has left his gig at NBC after being accused of sexually harassing five women.
Halperin, 52, allegedly grabbed a colleague’s breasts, pressed his genitals against three women, and propositioned other co-workers for sex during his time of political director of ABC, according to five women who spoke to CNN.
Halperin, who worked as a political analyst for NBC and MSNBC, issued an apology on Wednesday, although he denied grabbing a woman’s breasts and pressing his genitals against three women.
“During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me. I now understand from these accounts that my behavior was inappropriate and caused others pain,” Halperin said.
“For that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize. Under the circumstances, I’m going to take a step back from my day-to-day work while I properly deal with this situation,” he added.
That step back later became a departure, with NBC saying in a statement "we find the story and the allegations very troubling."
"Mark Halperin is leaving his role as a contributor until the questions around his past are fully understood," the network told a CNN reporter.
Emily Miller, currently with One America News Network, on Thursday tweeted she was “was ANOTHER junior ABC employee he attacked.”
“I did not report Halperin to ABC because I thought I was the only one, and I blamed myself, and I was embarrassed and I was scared of him,” she wrote.
Her remarks came after the five other women spoke to CNN about their experiences with Halperin at ABC.
One unidentified woman said Halperin forcibly kissed her, grabbed her breasts, and pressed his genitals against her body during a meeting in his office in the early 2000s, CNN reported.
Another woman shared a similar account, saying she was seated in his office when he approached from behind and “pressed his body on mine, his penis, on my shoulder,” she told cable network.
The former ABC News employee went on to work with Halperin on the 2004 campaign trail and said he would continue to proposition her by asking, “Why don’t you meet me upstairs?”
Two other women also claimed Halperin propositioned them while they were traveling together for work.
A fifth woman alleged Halperin was clothed when he placed his erect penis against her body without her consent.
Halperin went on to work for Time magainze, when he chronicled the 2008 Presidential election in the 2010 book “Game Change” with fellow journalist John Heilemann, along with “Double Down” about the 2012 race.
The blockbuster “Game Change” was turned into an HBO movie featuring Julianne Moore in a critically acclaimed portrayal of Sarah Palin.
The hype landed the pair a show on Bloomberg in 2014, where the duo oversaw the business network’s political coverage. Halperin announced in January 2017 he’d left Bloomberg.
Halperin is the latest figure to face sexual harassment allegations after dozens of women spoke out against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.
