NYT statement to me just now: "Intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal... It is inexcusable, and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies"https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/927697192785272833 …
-
-
Has NYT explained why they allowed themselves be lobbied by Rusty Crowe & Matt Damon to kill a Weinstein expose over a decade ago?
-
Did you see Matt Damon's response and that the author backed off her initial claim?
-
When Damon had Clooney hold his hand. Yes. That the journo changed her claim, no. Do you have a link where she does this?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The NYT is alleging that a substantive breach of ethics occurred, presumably one that would normally result in disbarment. Lawyers seem to take conflict of interest pretty seriously. It's a bit hard to believe there was no disclosure & they didn't know he was Weinstein's lawyer.
-
A substantive breach of professional ethics involved, either way. There are certain ways in which management can't firewall themselves from the newsroom, and this is one of them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.