• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NBC Threatened Ronan Farrow if He Kept Reporting on Harvey Weinstein

NeverTrump

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
NBC has protected Matt Lauer, Mr. Swampy, and Harvey Weinstein. Yet I hardly see any criticism of them.

It was just reported that NBC tried to shut down Mr. Ronan Farrow's investigation into Weinstein. This seems to me that NBC is scared of another story Ronan is working on and they are trying to discredit him. It's directly out of the playbooks of all of these men that they have protected over the years. That playbook was likely written by those same NBC executives.

I also found it shocking that Ronan left NBC. I figured something like this must have happened.

According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, NBC News general counsel Susan Weiner made a series of phone calls to Farrow, threatening to smear him if he continued to report on Weinstein.
Click to expand...

Sources: NBC Threatened Ronan Farrow if He Kept Reporting on Harvey Weinstein
 
I generally will defend "the media" against the usual bull**** right-wing attacks, but NBC is a pretty rotten organization. On the entertainment side, they're pretty good, and their infotainment shows (Maddow, Hayes, Scarborough) are not AS awful as they could be, but NBC's news division is BY FAR the worst of the big three networks.

GE was a terrible company to work for by pretty much all accounts, and that toxic culture seems to have dribbled into all of its former properties. Now it's owned by Comcast, a cable provider. I defy you to find me a worse corporate owner than a cable provider.
 
This boy is desperate for attention.
 
OldFatGuy said:
This boy is desperate for attention.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Farrow, that's probably true, but he's done some really good reporting in the past year. Exposing sexual predators ought to be cheered no matter what motivates him. Scum like Weinstein should be in jail, and Farrow helped expose that dirtbag. Good for him.

As for NBC, I'm glad to see them being drug through the mud for their behavior here, protecting Weinstein, or, alternatively, too chicken crap to take the risk of exposing a powerful guy like that. That with Matt Lauer and they have a lot to be ashamed of as an organization. Screw em.
 
JasperL said:
If you're talking about Farrow, that's probably true, but he's done some really good reporting in the past year. Exposing sexual predators ought to be cheered no matter what motivates him. Scum like Weinstein should be in jail, and Farrow helped expose that dirtbag. Good for him.

As for NBC, I'm glad to see them being drug through the mud for their behavior here, protecting Weinstein, or, alternatively, too chicken crap to take the risk of exposing a powerful guy like that. That with Matt Lauer and they have a lot to be ashamed of as an organization. Screw em.
Click to expand...

We don't need another Hedda Hopper. She did enough damage to the lives of others.

Weinstein will not see prison. He will make more movies. This will all pass as a minor footnote in history, very minor.
 
OldFatGuy said:
We don't need another Hedda Hopper. She did enough damage to the lives of others.

Weinstein will not see prison. He will make more movies. This will all pass as a minor footnote in history, very minor.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's a good thing Weinstein will, in your telling, make more movies?

I don't understand your problem with Farrow exposing abusive scumbags like Weinstein. Or Eric Schneiderman who liked to champion women in his day job and then get drunk and beat the **** out of them at his house. **** those guys.
 
While it's not impossible that someone at NBC attempted to discourage Farrow from conducting an informal investigation or publishing his findings from it, it's implausible that the network would do so officially. Squelching such an investigation's findings is antithetical to the network's ratings-generation, thus profit motives. I mean, really. What news organization is going to eschew publishing a legitimate news story that also has tons of intrinsic sensationalism that is worth literally millions in revenue? Short of extant extraordinary circumstances, none. It's one thing to sensationalize a banal story; however, to a new organization, it's a windfall to have fall in its lap a story an inherently poignant story. The bean-counting execs in television network corporations are very unlikely to dissuade their personnel from publishing such stories.
 
OldFatGuy said:
We don't need another Hedda Hopper. She did enough damage to the lives of others.

Weinstein will not see prison. He will make more movies. This will all pass as a minor footnote in history, very minor.
Click to expand...


Weinstein will probably not be making more movies other than out of his prison cell, or if he doesn't end up in jail, out of his garage. This will be more than a 'very minor' footnote.
 
JasperL said:
Do you think it's a good thing Weinstein will, in your telling, make more movies?

I don't understand your problem with Farrow exposing abusive scumbags like Weinstein. Or Eric Schneiderman who liked to champion women in his day job and then get drunk and beat the **** out of them at his house. **** those guys.
Click to expand...

I am not a jury, judge or executioner. No matter his proclivities, Weinstein has been and will continue to be a producer of great movies. It is not an industry of sexual innocence. When one of his accusers claims he raped her twice, both times at her home, never reported either incident at the time, claimed "me too" I have no reason to believer her because she invited him back for the second go round. The casting couch has been around since the days of the silent movies. Another of his accusers has now been accused of the same crime as him. The excuses are rampant. Either an actor or actress has self respect and integrity or they don't. On the other hand, I have no doubt he used his position to get what he wanted from her with false promises. Disgusting abuse of power? Without a doubt. Does it change the quality of his film legacy? No. Everything in these cases is he said, she said. Numbers of accusations do not create corroborating evidence other than in the public eye, enjoying the scandals in the gossip rags. Courts of law require more.

Schneiderman was a known quantity for years. Protected by position and political colleagues. The hypocrisy no different than Spitzer's. They both were outed, both resigned, and both are finished. On their own heads.

And as pathetic as it sounds, men like Schneiderman, not so rare, find women who expect and desire abuse. No less twisted than the men who abuse them. It is a quid pro quo. I won't get into the psychology, or rationalize excuses for either, but "if daddy doesn't hit me, he doesn't love me" is part of the equation. Acceptable? No. You and I may not find hypocrites like Schneiderman and Spitzer acceptable for the public trust, but others have different priorities and lament their loss as a less evil over those they targeted.

Farrow is a low life dog turd. A scavenger, who cares not for his victims or their targets, but only for using sensationalism to enhance his own name and position. He's a self appointed vigilante and lyncher, acting outside our system of justice, with no concern for who he harms as collateral damage along the way. May he rot in hell sooner rather than later. Along with his vindictive lying mother who used her children to further her vengeance for being scorned. Ronan learned from a pro.
 
holbritter said:
Weinstein will probably not be making more movies other than out of his prison cell, or if he doesn't end up in jail, out of his garage. This will be more than a 'very minor' footnote.
Click to expand...

Jack Warner was accused by more than thousand young women. Who remembers, who cares? Not even a footnote if film history. His legacy lives on and is still making movies, but you know better. :rofl
 
OldFatGuy said:
I am not a jury, judge or executioner. No matter his proclivities, Weinstein has been and will continue to be a producer of great movies. It is not an industry of sexual innocence. When one of his accusers claims he raped her twice, both times at her home, never reported either incident at the time, claimed "me too" I have no reason to believer her because she invited him back for the second go round. The casting couch has been around since the days of the silent movies. Another of his accusers has now been accused of the same crime as him. The excuses are rampant. Either an actor or actress has self respect and integrity or they don't. On the other hand, I have no doubt he used his position to get what he wanted from her with false promises. Disgusting abuse of power? Without a doubt. Does it change the quality of his film legacy? No. Everything in these cases is he said, she said. Numbers of accusations do not create corroborating evidence other than in the public eye, enjoying the scandals in the gossip rags. Courts of law require more.

Schneiderman was a known quantity for years. Protected by position and political colleagues. The hypocrisy no different than Spitzer's. They both were outed, both resigned, and both are finished. On their own heads.

And as pathetic as it sounds, men like Schneiderman, not so rare, find women who expect and desire abuse. No less twisted than the men who abuse them. It is a quid pro quo. I won't get into the psychology, or rationalize excuses for either, but "if daddy doesn't hit me, he doesn't love me" is part of the equation. Acceptable? No. You and I may not find hypocrites like Schneiderman and Spitzer acceptable for the public trust, but others have different priorities and lament their loss as a less evil over those they targeted.

Farrow is a low life dog turd. A scavenger, who cares not for his victims or their targets, but only for using sensationalism to enhance his own name and position. He's a self appointed vigilante and lyncher, acting outside our system of justice, with no concern for who he harms as collateral damage along the way. May he rot in hell sooner rather than later. Along with his vindictive lying mother who used her children to further her vengeance for being scorned. Ronan learned from a pro.
Click to expand...

I like him. And he's a surprisingly strong writer, too.

Jmho.
 
OldFatGuy said:
We don't need another Hedda Hopper. She did enough damage to the lives of others.

Weinstein will not see prison. He will make more movies. This will all pass as a minor footnote in history, very minor.
Click to expand...

Kevin Spacey's movie that just came out made $126. I don't think people will be agreeing with you. Plus Weinstein's company is bankrupt and sold off. Hollywood has banished it into the grave. Weinstein is broke paying for lawyers. He will rot in jail.
 
Xelor said:
While it's not impossible that someone at NBC attempted to discourage Farrow from conducting an informal investigation or publishing his findings from it, it's implausible that the network would do so officially. Squelching such an investigation's findings is antithetical to the network's ratings-generation, thus profit motives. I mean, really. What news organization is going to eschew publishing a legitimate news story that also has tons of intrinsic sensationalism that is worth literally millions in revenue? Short of extant extraordinary circumstances, none. It's one thing to sensationalize a banal story; however, to a new organization, it's a windfall to have fall in its lap a story an inherently poignant story. The bean-counting execs in television network corporations are very unlikely to dissuade their personnel from publishing such stories.
Click to expand...

They have a history of covering things like this up. That's why they squashed it and that's why Ronan left.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
They have a history of covering things like this up. That's why they squashed it and that's why Ronan left.
Click to expand...
I really can't form a conclusion that strikes me as cogent or sound on the matter.

Farrow taped multiple interviews in early and mid-2017, and believed his Weinstein investigation was ready for broadcast. But NBC disagreed. The network essentially told him to take the story elsewhere.

He did, and The New Yorker published it in October 2017, just a few days after The New York Times published its own investigation into Weinstein. The two publications recently received the Pulitzer Prize for public service in recognition of the reporting.

Within the halls of NBC, some staffers view the episode as a giant and embarrassing missed opportunity.

Farrow left NBC altogether, and he has continued to break stories for The New Yorker. Earlier this week, he co-bylined a story about abuse allegations that resulted in New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's resignation.

There have been conflicting accounts about why NBC tabled the Weinstein investigation.

Did the network's executives not have the stomach for the inevitable legal threats? Were they trying to protect relationships in Hollywood? Did they simply believe that the complicated story was better suited to a long-form or print format? Or were there other reasons?

The official answer at the time, from NBC News president Noah Oppenheim, was that "we didn't feel that we had all the elements that we needed to air it."

"We supported him and gave him resources to report that story over many, many months," Oppenheim said. "The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us."

Farrow apparently has a different account. He hinted at it on Friday when he responded to journalist Yashar Ali's tweet that "NBC executives doubting @RonanFarrow's ability to report out a story is one of the biggest mistakes a news organization has made in the past decade."

Farrow replied, "Doubting my ability is not what happened at NBC."
(Source)
Click to expand...


In a New York Times article published Thursday night, McHugh said that during the final stages of their report into Weinstein's alleged sexual misconduct, he and Farrow "felt resistance…we were told to put the story on the back burner."

McHugh also claimed that three days before they were going to interview someone with a "credible rape allegation against Harvey Weinstein" he was "ordered" to "stand down on the story altogether." He said the order came from "the very highest levels of NBC" and that Weinstein allegedly called NBC executives directly – once, he says, while he was in the room with them.

In a statement to CBS News, an NBC News spokesperson says in part: "The assertion that NBC News tried to kill the Weinstein story while Ronan Farrow was at NBC News...is an outright lie."

...

McHugh says he will not disclose which executives had told him to stand down on his reporting. The president of NBC News says Weinstein had no influence on the network's handling of the Weinstein story. Weinstein denies all allegations of sexual assault.
(Source)
Click to expand...

Blue:
It's odd that McHugh won't identify the execs whom he alleges instructed him and Farrow to forswear the investigation/story. Sure, McHugh could be sued for libel, but the unassailable defense against libel is truth, shown either demonstratively or by a preponderance of evidence. If one who'd make a claim has neither mode on his/her side (or has demonstrable truth against him/her), s/he should never have made the charge from the get-go.
 
Xelor said:
It's odd that McHugh won't identify the execs whom he alleges instructed him and Farrow to forswear the investigation/story. Sure, McHugh could be sued for libel, but the unassailable defense against libel is truth, shown either demonstratively or by a preponderance of evidence. If one who'd make a claim has neither mode on his/her side (or has demonstrable truth against him/her), s/he should never have made the charge from the get-go.
Click to expand...

There's a big report about NBC coming out. They are trying to discredit Ronan. I think Ronan is releasing it via The Daily Beast. Maybe McHugh knows and is waiting for Ronan to release the story. That's why he won't say more.
 
Howard the Duck said:
I like him. And he's a surprisingly strong writer, too.

Jmho.
Click to expand...

Joe Nesbo, Joe Abercombie, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway (not necessarily of the same quality) were and are strong writers, but they admit they were writing fiction.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Kevin Spacey's movie that just came out made $126. I don't think people will be agreeing with you. Plus Weinstein's company is bankrupt and sold off. Hollywood has banished it into the grave. Weinstein is broke paying for lawyers. He will rot in jail.
Click to expand...

Baby Driver did great at the Box Office.

Weinstein's company was a float. Not bankrupt, and when sold, both brothers walked away with hundreds of millions, not one cent in their own names, but still in their control. Wealth is not about money, it is about control of assets that produce money. Game move, queen's rook 2.

When you have a clue as to how much wealth Harvey has salted away, get back to me. He could fight this fight financially for a few hundred years without touching principal. Your moral limitations are your own.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
There's a big report about NBC coming out. They are trying to discredit Ronan. I think Ronan is releasing it via The Daily Beast. Maybe McHugh knows and is waiting for Ronan to release the story. That's why he won't say more.
Click to expand...
Other than the "big report" that is "coming out," all the rest you've posited is speculative. It'd be different were the prime movers involved -- the vices of pride, sloth, envy and avarice -- not at odds, endogenously and exogenously with regard to one another, in this matter, but they are. Their being so forces one to consider the beneficiaries of the vices' application: some people's (Weinstein's and his victims') reputations and some people's money (the incomes of NBC execs and NBC owners).

As I noted earlier, the notions you've presented are plausible, but as bald assertions, that's all they are. Do you care to add rigor to your case so as to bring it from merely plausible to probable?
  • Perhaps NBC has purchased the rights to a Weinstein property and didn't want the story to break before it realized its ROI for that show?
  • Perhaps there's evidence that Comcast, NBC's parent company, had some sort of major investment in one or more Weinstein properties and wanted time to divest itself from them or obtain some "reasonable" ROI on those investments?
You've heard the saying "follow the money." Money is what moves corporation executives to do pretty much everything. (For good reason -- they're paid to manage the companies they do so as to maximize returns to firm owners.) So, where the economic ROI favors one tack over another, that's the most likely tack they'll take. Accordingly material data points to obtain are these:
  • Reasonably estimable ROI (net) of running the story
  • Reasonably estimable ROI (net) of attempting to squelch the story ("attempting" because actually doing so isn't really possible -- thus making the squelching merely a matter of forcing some other outlet to be the one to publish it)
 
Xelor said:
Other than the "big report" that is "coming out," all the rest you've posited is speculative. It'd be different were the prime movers involved -- the vices of pride, sloth, envy and avarice -- not at odds, endogenously and exogenously with regard to one another, in this matter, but they are. Their being so forces one to consider the beneficiaries of the vices' application: some people's (Weinstein's and his victims') reputations and some people's money (the incomes of NBC execs and NBC owners).

As I noted earlier, the notions you've presented are plausible, but as bald assertions, that's all they are. Do you care to add rigor to your case so as to bring it from merely plausible to probable?
  • Perhaps NBC has purchased the rights to a Weinstein property and didn't want the story to break before it realized its ROI for that show?
  • Perhaps there's evidence that Comcast, NBC's parent company, had some sort of major investment in one or more Weinstein properties and wanted time to divest itself from them or obtain some "reasonable" ROI on those investments?
You've heard the saying "follow the money." Money is what moves corporation executives to do pretty much everything. (For good reason -- they're paid to manage the companies they do so as to maximize returns to firm owners.) So, where the economic ROI favors one tack over another, that's the most likely tack they'll take. Accordingly material data points to obtain are these:
  • Reasonably estimable ROI (net) of running the story
  • Reasonably estimable ROI (net) of attempting to squelch the story ("attempting" because actually doing so isn't really possible -- thus making the squelching merely a matter of forcing some other outlet to be the one to publish it)
Click to expand...

Yeah it could be anything, but I don't like that they are trying to smear him using similar tactics of the men they propped up for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom