This is why I'm a NYT subscriber. It appears that you and the brave, brave women who told their stories were the only people with the guts to bring that monster down. Bravo!
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They used to try to get people to confess to stuff like heresy and witchcraft by putting heavier and heavier stones on them. They should do that to Weinstein, but just on his balls. Confession optional.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Harvey's like Roy Moore abusing their power over women in weaker, younger or beholden positions. Al
@SenFranken Franken is entirely different in that he was in no such position of power. His accusers are opportunistic political weapons deployed by Bannon and his cronies.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
the final words in the 2011 article are apparently "poor guy’s movie".) (61/61) (cc:
@jodikantor,@jimrutenberg,@mega2e,@susandominus,@SteveEder,@RonanFarrow,@NewYorker,@AGSchneiderman,@AGBecerra)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
appears to contain a publication error, in which a large portion of the article is repeated after the article should end; {60/n}
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
behavior in detail, so that readers can get a clearer picture of Weinstein's personality and character (and of the allegations of sexual violence and sexual harassment Weinstein currently faces). (Note: the 2011
@VanityFair article discussed in this series of tweets {59/n}Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
accounts of Weinstein's violent sexual attacks. In this regard, rather than minimizing and neglecting to discuss the violent and abusive behavior Weinstein apparently displayed during his day-to-day management of Miramax, perhaps the
@nytimes should instead discuss such (58/n)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
in them: {1} 6-Oct-2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/business/media/harvey-weinsteins-media-enablers.html …; {2} 11-Oct-2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/business/harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment.html …; {3} 11-Oct-2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/business/weinstein-company.html …; {4} 23-Oct-2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/us/harvey-weinstein-eric-schneiderman.html …). Since the
@nytimes's 5-Oct-2017 story broke, quite a few females have come forward with disturbing (57/n)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
its aforementioned 2017 articles (especially the 5-Oct-2017 and 5-Dec-2017 articles). (Note: the descriptions in Biskind's book are also relevant to the following four recent
@nytimes articles/editorials regarding Weinstein, but are not discussed or mentioned {56/n}Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Miramax employees or ex-employees) that are contained therein (and discussed in this series of tweets). It is thus unclear why
@nytimes did not discuss (or even mention in passing) the descriptions of Weinstein's workplace behavior that appear in Biskind's book in any of (55/n)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Harvey Weinstein's workplace behavior. Nonetheless, the 2004 book review DOES indicate that
@nytimes WAS AWARE of Biskind's portrayal of Weinstein in 'Down and Dirty Pictures', as well as the disturbing first-person accounts of Harvey and Bob Weinstein (provided by {54/n}Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
does indicate that Biskind portrays Weinstein as "an egomaniacal bully" with "a temper the size of TriBeCa", who "humiliates employees" and "overturns loaded breakfast tables"; of course, the point of the book review was not to dwell on or discuss the implications of (53/n)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Biskind's book 'Down and Dirty Pictures' WAS REVIEWED by the
@nytimes in 2004 (review accessible here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/books/books-of-the-times-the-cowboys-who-took-on-the-indies.html …). The@nytimes's 2004 book review is written in a light-hearted tone, and seems to largely gloss over Weinstein's violent behavior, although it (52/n)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2004 (the same year that Biskind's book was published), which is well before the
@nytimes's 2017 articles came out. (Note: the following 2017@VanityFair article also indicates that the 2011 article was originally published in 2004: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/10/peter-biskind-harvey-weinstein-allegations …). Furthermore, {51/n}Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
article, the (
@VanityFair) article can easily be found through web searches. The@VanityFair article is currently dated in 2011, although the URL (i.e., web address) for the article (and text in the introduction of the article) suggests that it was originally published in (50/n)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.