Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

How'd babe (lol) end up getting this story again?

 

You know what, Dick? The babe (lol) reporter should have included explicit quotes from the roomie and bestie describing what happened being that Grace filled them in on the details later;

Would have been nice to hear roomie say the Grace sucked his dick and Aziz ate her pussy. Would have been nice to hear the bestie say the same thing.

Doesn't quite cut it for me. It's a vague quote that sounds made up. The "corroboration" is tissue thin bordering on not believable.

 

This is why it's so annoying to argue with you sometimes. You can't simply say "There was a lot of good stuff here, but some of it was problematic. The Times piece was flawed, but it's actually amazing someone finally got these women to go on the record. I see your point, but I hope you'll consider mine."

It's always about extremes. This was garbage. This blows that away. Acknowledge this, or you're stupid.

There are actually complexities to all of this. Did Babe.net try to convinced this woman to go on the record? Did they do some gumshoe reporting to see if this kind of behavior reflected a pattern in Ansari's behavior? Did they try to get various accounts from those other women?

In the Rolling Stone case, you were adamant Erdley didn't do the job that any good journalist would have done. And you're right. You've now made the same point about the Times and Louis CK. But this does not apply, for some reason, to Babe.net, which baffles me. You feel like one interview, and a quick discussion with her roommate, BLOWS AWAY other reporting that the Times did, and oh by the way, their VICTORY TOUR was shameless. (The reporters on the Louis CK story, by the way, did no such victory tour. That was the reporters on Weinstein. Only Kantor reported on both.)

 

"Bitch!"

"Bastard."

One of the greatest scenes of the 80's.

 

What fucking kind of camera was it that they both had!?

 

I have said that. I don't think the story should have run.

But I will also credit the reporter with pressing for and publishing details that a lot of reporters - including the Louis C.K. reporters - seem too squeamish to press for. I will say it again: For all of its flaws, it is the closest we have to a fully-reported, start-to-finish encounter, with few details spared.

 

Why not press/convince this woman to go on the record? Were they going to get beat on the story?

 

The reporter, Katie Way, graduated Northwestern in '17, which puts her age at 22 or 23.

Grace was 22 when this happened, now 23.

Getting that nagging feeling Katie and Grace knew each other before this all happened.

 

I don't disagree with you - although, yes, I imagine that they were going to get beat. I had assumed the woman was probably shopping her story around. I thought I had read that somewhere, but maybe it was speculation.

I wouldn't have run the story anonymously. I wouldn't have run the Patrick Kane story, and police were investigating that one. With few exceptions, I wouldn't run a story letting an anonymous accuser sound off on an accused person without a civil complaint filed or criminal charges brought by a prosecutor. I realize the horse is pretty much of out the barn on that with criminal investigations, but in an ideal world, those stories don't run.

We're talking past each other about "reporting" here. Yes, obviously it is good that Kantor group of reporters got women to go on the record, although they failed to ask those people some key, obvious questions. (You say that Louis C.K. cleaned it up the next day, but really the women did - they said on Twitter that they didn't consent).

One of your issues here is that there aren't enough sources, whereas the Kantor piece has lots of sources. But that's because there were lots of accusers. At the very least, the Babe.net reporter got corroboration from friends that Grace spoke to at the time. That's not nothing.

When I'm talking about the better "reporting," I'm talking narrowly: She pressed for and included enough details that we actually get a narrative account that leaves less to subtext than any such account I have read to this point.

 

I believe we have different perspectives on what this word means.

Actually, I don't believe that. I don't think that if Peyton Manning's accuser gave this same account to Babe.net, you would feel this same way.

Nor do I think if this woman gave this same account to Sabrina Rubin Erdley, would you feel this way. (And Erdley also checked with Jackie's friends, remember?)

Reporting is not just interviewing someone. Who is this woman? How many times has Ansari pressured women into sex? Have women on Master of None or Parks and Rec felt pressured into having sex with him? Any attempt to interview the Uber driver to corroborate that this woman was clearly upset? Good reporting, especially when you use anonymous sources, takes time and effort and an on-going attempt to cross check and verify stuff so that people can't pick out holes in it as they attempt to discredit the whole story. You know this.

We can agree that the Babe.net piece is worthwhile, and interesting, and important to the cultural moment, without making such hyperbolic statements like "its reporting blows other accounts away."

I've written a lot of stories where I've sat with a subject and mined them for tons of details. And mostly I used those details verbatim, as a feature writer. I don't consider that exhaustive reporting. In fact, I think it's a pretty flawed way to shape a narrative. I seem to remember you quibbling with this kind of thing repeatedly, and with good reason. One person giving an interview, and answering good questions, that can help shape a gripping narrative, but it's also problematic. People's memories are never, ever exact, as as a lawyer you know this better than 99 percent of us. It's why eyewitness testimony is so problematic. People remember what they want to remember.

 

Whether they knew each other or not, this is a pretty tricky story for a brand-new reporter to navigate. I can't think of many shops that would assign such a story to the rookie in the room.

 

This is a rookie subsidiary of an outfit funded by Murdoch. I doubt there are many rules.