I've started a new thread for this because I think the previous threads didn't adequately cover the possible motives.
In this very interesting piece, we see how Weinstein's behavior has been an open secret for decades. So why is the story only now making headlines? The author notes that Weinstein's film business hasn't been as successful, financially or critically, in the past few years; plus he is old and tired-looking. Then she decides that it's mostly because of feminism.
Well ... I don't doubt that feminism is a factor. I also think it's a factor that Ronan Farrow has made it his life's mission to expose pedos and abusers, and his New Yorker article was going to come out anyway, whether the NYT did a story or not.
However, that only compels the NYT to cover the story. It doesn't require a whole team, or months of their own research. In this previous thread, @Are_we_sure correctly observed that the NYT went far, far beyond the minimum here. (I don't care if you don't like @Are_we_sure. On this point he is correct.)
So why? I think this might be an important moment in the overall bring-down-the-pedos struggle.
We know that the senior staff at the NYT have a mandate to protect the deep state. They were chosen because of their pro-pedo, pro-abuse outlook; they excuse every insane thing the Clintons do, and commission pieces normalizing pedophilia. We also know that Harvey Weinstein is incredibly well connected, and still very powerful even if his films have slumped a bit.
I think this story sends a message to the entire pedo/abuser/deep state network. We know that they number in the tens of thousands. They include senior people at NASA and the CDC, state and municipal officials, ambassadors, and on and on. I think that many of these people hoped, back in the spring and summer, that somehow Mueller and the Russian thing would bring Trump down. But it hasn't, and won't. Now the NFL fiasco has proved, once again, that Trump has a very broad base of support. So this "struggle in the shadows" is going to go on for a good long while yet. Years.
I think the NYT decided it was time to impose a little bit of discipline on their rowdy crew of child rapists. I think they're making an example of Mr. Weinstein.
This is someone who donates millions to the Democrats, and crushes even semi-famous people who cross him. And he probably hasn't murdered anyone, or staged bizarre Satanic torture rituals in a basement somewhere; my impression is that he's just an asshole who doesn't care if a girl is actually 18 yet when he hits on her (and won't take no for an answer). Not that that's okay, it's just kind of small time by the standards we have learned to apply in Washington DC.
All this makes him an excellent example, a highly useful teaching tool in preparing for the next few years of chaos. This is a message to all those mid-level managers, sheriffs, lower court justices, and so on, who got promoted because they belong to the Royal Order of Jesters and have an ugly hobby. NOBODY is safe now. You CAN be sacrificed, and you will be sacrificed the moment you become more trouble than you're worth.
We'll know more as the story unfolds. Weinstein will try to kill it, to apologize and excuse and bluster and so on. But I'm guessing the NYT calculated the cost of standing up to him in advance, as did the New Yorker. If this story drags on through Christmas, then I think that means I'm right. They didn't do this because they wanted to; they did it because the continued existence of Trump, plus the citizen-investigator army, made it necessary.
And that is actually very good news for our side. Pat yourselves on the back, folks, and put a "W" in today's box scores.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we__sure ago
Hi. This is bonkers.
There's a much simpler reason you can't fit this story with your grand theory.
SoberSecondThought ago
It really isn't that complicated a theory. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church ran a similar organization that reached into practically every parish in the Western world, and managed to silence the victims for decades. We'll be cleaning up that mess for the rest of our lives. Since 2012, Mark Thompson has been the CEO at the NYT, and he very clearly covered up for Jimmy Savile when he was in charge at the BBC. This is a story that could cost the newspaper millions in a lawsuit, and they're bleeding cash already. So Mark Thompson signed off on this before it ran. And if he signed off, he had a reason.
I realize you don't agree, and by all means stay skeptical. There are plenty of claims in the Pedogate story that I don't believe either. This just isn't one of those difficult ones.
Are_we_sure ago
Thompson may be CEO, but it's the Chairman is the real power at the Times.
This is just one of many non-sequiturs in your reply. It's a story that could cost them millions..... only if it's false. Did you ever think they published it because it's true and it's news. Why is it coming out now? They were able to get sources to go on the record (this also means they actually won't face a lawsuit. Harvey is threatening one, but everyone knows it's an empty threat.) The "news peg" for this story is they found out about a memo an employee wrote that detailed her not just her situation, but the situations of many women who worked there. So they had something to investigate. Why now? I'm guessing someone leaked them this memo. The NY Post is reporting that it might have been Bob Weinstein trying to push Harvey out of the company.
The simple reason you can't square this with your grand theory is one of them is taking place in the real world and the other is not.
You didn't read the New York Times in 2016 did you? or in the 1990s did you?
I didn't say your theory was complicated. It's the standard THEPOWERSTHATBE conspiracy theory. I said your theory was bonkers. And the simple reason you can't square this story with your theory is one is real and the other is not. In fact your fact theory is mutually incompatible with actual reality.
SoberSecondThought ago
Hm. Well, on the question of who is the "real power" at the NYT, I'm going to need something a little stronger than your word that Thompson doesn't have the power to kill or tone down a potentially costly story. Sure seems to me like he would.
On the question of whether it really is potentially costly -- Gawker was completely destroyed by a lawsuit (the Hulk Hogan thing) in which everything they had said was agreed to be true. The judgment was on whether they had the right to invade Hogan's privacy, which is bound to be raised as an issue here too. And it sometimes costs a lot to defend yourself even if you win. There's no guarantee that they'll be awarded costs.
As for the story that Bob Weinstein is behind it, well, sure, why not. I was already willing to concede that the original impetus for the story came from outside the NYT. I still think it may have been Ronan Farrow. Let's be clear here: I don't think the CIA controls the New Yorker, or the NY Post. I don't think there are CIA operatives at the crosswords desk of the NYT, or writing restaurant reviews. I'm simply noting a publicly documented fact: Ever since the 1970s, and Operation Mockingbird, it has been clear that elements within the U.S. government have been using major publications like the Washington Post and the NYT to shape the news. I think that before they run a major story, the NYT talks to certain people about the impact that it will have. And the reason I think that is because it has already been proven true.
Now, the advice they get from those high-level people varies. For example, the NYT used to take a pretty hard line on illegal immigration. But then they got into deep financial trouble and had to be bailed out by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. And surprisingly, the NYT rethought its immigration stand. Ann Coulter has explained this particular about-face very well. My point is that what they practice is not so much honest journalism, as advancing the views of certain powerful interests. Whose interest are they advancing with this story? What does anyone powerful gain from this?
Now, as for the Clintons and how they have been treated over the years. I never said they didn't criticize the Clintons; I said they excused them. In the 1990s, they dutifully covered the cattle futures story, or the Marc Rich pardon, or the Chinese pay-for-play scandal. They reported the basic facts, they tut-tutted and said it looked bad, and that there were questions that needed to be asked. Very much like how Comey criticized Hillary's conduct of the email thing. But there was never the slightest doubt (as there never was with Comey) that they would endorse the Clintons or that they would take their side in the end. The NYT's view of the Clintons over the past 30 years is very much like everyone's treatment of Harvey Weinstein over the past 20 years; they don't push. They'll say that a move was controversial, not that it was outright corruption. They'll say that Bill showed poor judgment, not that he committed rape.
The NYT is a corrupt part of a corrupt machine. Certain topics do not get discussed, certain people never get seriously criticized. When they do, it signals a significant change.
Are_we_sure ago
If you don't understand the difference between and the Hulk Hogan story of private activity and Weinstein's on the job behavior., there's probably not much I can do to show you that these are not comparable cases at all.
Gawked published video of Hulk Hogan having sex. Hogan said he never consented to that video being made. He wasn't suing Gawker for defamation where the the truth would be a shield, he sued for invasion of privacy.
The NY Times published at article of Harvey Weinstein's conduct at work.
These are a million miles apart in both the public's right to know and and the invasion of privacy issue. There's no chance for Weinstein to win a lawsuit.
The NY Times also has some of the top First Amendment lawyers in the country and several Supreme Court cases that defined 1st Ammendment freedoms to its credit. In fact, the actual malice standard a public figure like Weinstein would have to overcome in a defamation suit was established in Sullivan v New York Times.
Yeah, you don't seem to understand this either. Who would the NY Times need to talk to about Harvey Weinstein?
So still bonkers.