http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/09/harvey-weinstein-sh...
To summarize: He doesn't remember the conversation in which he allegedly argued that Weinstein wasn't a worthy public topic. And he never met with Weinstein at the Times, as Waxman claims. So it's her word against his. But we can as outsiders consider these assertions:
> Landman also questioned why “if the Times had been intent on protecting Weinstein, wouldn’t it be odd to send a reporter to pursue this story on two continents, at considerable time and expense?’
From the NYT's response (from the current exec editor, who wasn't at the NYT in 2004):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/reader-center/dean-baquet...
> I’m sure Ms. Waxman believes she had a story. But if you read her own description, she did not have anything near what was revealed in our story. Mainly, she had an off-the-record account from one woman.
That's not to say that Waxman isn't right on a certain principle: stories don't need to face direct opposition to be "killed". If the NYT had been more open to the idea of Weinstein being a serial abuser, they would have given her more time and resources to pursue evidence that would eventually lead to on-the-record testimony and other hard evidence.
But that's not what you said. You simplified all of the NYT's (and others') inaction to an evil villain picking up a phone and making a threat. What do you mean that the current story came about because "it became absolutely impossible to ignore"? Do you think that it all started with tweetstorms from recent victims? The first story in NYT's investigation involved incidents that were decades old. Meaning that nothing became "impossible to ignore" -- ignoring was the status quo for decades. It's very difficult to square your assertion with the fact that the NYT would've needed to throw considerable money at this investigation to even get it off the grounds.
Sorry to be an apologist for the NYT, but your simplification does a bit of injustice to what the victims faced in the Weinstein scandal, as if they had been complaining on-the-record and openly for decades and they were ignored because of an elite conspiracy. It appears that what they faced was even worse, threats from their own industry and massive personal shame to the point that it was just easier to keep quiet and sign non-disclosure agreements than to speak out about injustice. And Waxman herself would probably agree to this, as she left the NYT to found her own media outlet, which until the NYT's investigation, seems to have completely ignored Weinstein's scandalous history.
In the case of the Indonesia massacre, it's very possible/likely that it was a story that news organizations didn't push hard enough to investigate. That's not at all inconceivable, especially as we see media organizations outright shutting down because of lack of money. But giving your argument the benefit of the doubt, that the media is "consistently doing the government's bidding", then why was it the media that rooted out the Pentagon Papers and the My Lai massacre (the NYT and Sy Hersh specifically for the latter) and published photos that contributed heavily to the public's disillusionment with the war?
But to the greater point: it seems ironic to simplify things into a media conspiracy because of something you read from a Chomsky book, in a thread about an article that hints (based on a recently declassified document) at how perversely/tragically complicated world politics is, even in the face of a massacre. To the smaller issue of media complicity, I'd completely agree that that media organizations have the capacity to act maliciously, or at least be too slow/unprepared to respond to injustice. But that's a result of media organizations -- similar to governments -- being complicated. To reduce the factors of a worldwide tragedy to the consequences of a S.P.E.C.T.R.E. caricature pulling all the strings, ultimately does not help in helping people remember history in order to avoid repeating it.
edit: I gave Waxman more benefit of the doubt before she recently came to the defense of Matt Damon, who was getting criticized as being complicit to the alleged killing of Waxman's story:
https://twitter.com/sharonwaxman/status/917821882556022786
And yet Waxman, an experienced reporter who was writing for her website (i.e. no constraints from ink/paper limits, or overreaching editors), wrote this about Damon:
> The story I reported never ran.
> After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.
There is no way you intentionally write that about Damon and Crowe, without adding a caveat (e.g. "to vouch for Lambardo as a colleague, though I never asked them about the sexual abuse allegations"), unless you intend to amplify the drama of your own story, i.e. Hollywood's pressure on Waxman. That she only absolves Damon after he gives his side of the story makes me think that she might exaggerate the amount of real evidence she had on Weinstein in 2004 (evidence, again, that she sat on for 12+ years, as someone whose entire livelihood is reporting on Hollywood). But I do agree that the NYT columnist she wrote in response to is "sanctimonious" [0]. Even if that columnist, and his editors, were unaware of Waxman's 2004efforts, they do have current colleagues who cover Hollywood and who most definitely had heard the open secret. I don't agree with you that if the NYT suppressed news about Weinstein out of profit-motive, but I can believe that the NYT could have done more earlier to question someone who happens to be cozy with New York media and media reporters.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/business/media/harvey-wei...
No conspiracy necessary.
He investigates a number of "filters," or ways in which reporting is distorted. For example there's a massive disparity in sources. The US military and corporate America spend vast sums of money and manpower contributing stories and source information that media companies depend on. Another is advertising: newspapers that are not advertiser-funded are much less profitable, and therefore more expensive, and therefore suffer in distribution. Etc.
I think there are five in total. Then for each filter, he'll go through countless examples. It's actually quite fascinating.
With regard to specific events, I believe he talks about both the Pentagon Papers and the My Lai massacre. IIRC he builds a compelling case for how the powers that be were themselves incentivized to see the end of the Vietnam war.
As for Waxman, I don't recall reading in her story that she said her editor was the one who met with Weinstein, so it doesn't surprise me that he denies it was him. It also doesn't seem inconsistent with her story that they'd fund her, a reporter, to do reporting, given that (according to her) they weren't against the story until after it was done.
Of course it's entirely possible that she's lying and she made the whole thing up. I'm not a mind reader. But that's missing the point. Chomsky's case doesn't rest on a single story any more than it rests on a conspiracy theory. It doesn't require there to be airtight 100% successful manipulation of the news.
Rather, it's a case built on the back of consistent and sustained bias in favor of the government, advertisers, and sources, with hundreds of examples and troves of data.
> It also doesn't seem inconsistent with her story that they'd fund her, a reporter, to do reporting, given that (according to her) they weren't against the story until after it was done.
That's the wrong, simplistic way to think about things. Like startups and software, stories are not "done" until they are published or put on market. Waxman had a single off-the-record source. That is not a story, that is the beginning of an investigation (as it likely was for the current NYT-Weinstein investigation). Maybe the editors were at fault for not aggressively suspecting fire where there seemed to be smoke, but Waxman had nothing of the sort that the current NYT reporters had -- neither in notes nor draft form -- and for her to suggest so is dishonest, since she would be presenting that evidence in her critique.
Again, not having read "Manufacturing Consent", I can't address its specific evidence. But I would love to see what datasets and hypotheses Chomsky uses as proxies to empirically show the ties that you say. Because while data is the plural of anecdote, I'm inclined to believe the inherent nature of data and the politics of its collection means that many of the necessary datasets needed to make those conclusion do not exist in a comprehensive form.
To argue that the powers-that-be, including the media, were "incentivized" to see the end of the Vietnam War may be the actual objective reality. Or it may be a conclusion easy to reach in retrospect of history (i.e. the Vietnam War being a political disaster) by cherry-picking the "data". What would be the evidence/data that could conclusively show the null hypothesis here? And for that matter, why don't the "powers-that-be" include the U.S. presidents (and all of their corporate overloads) at the time whose careers were devastated by the negative perception of the Vietnam War?
I agree that Chomsky's hypothesis doesn't require 100% successful manipulation of the news. So what's the accepted success rate? 75%? 50%? When is the success rate so small that it's indistinguishable from coincidences in a random universe, or one in which the actors or much more independent and the factors much more complicated?
Maybe the answer -- like the hypothesis "Because God made it like so" -- is truly impossible to discern. But the hypothesis is still harmful because in a universe in which the hypothesis is false, it causes us to overlook the more mundane events and systemic factors that precipitate terrible things. Instead, we unconsciously absolve ourselves of action by assigning blame to conspiracy and collusion at a scale too great for us to act upon.
As for Waxman, I make no claim that she had evidence equivalent to what the current reporters had, nor does she make that claim. In fact, I claimed just the opposite: if the evidence had been that substantial, they would've had no choice but to run it. Besides, the only disincentive to do so — losing Weinstein's company's advertising dollars — would've been nullified by Weinstein's impending doom and loss of control over how that budget is spent, anyway.
We can speculate as to just how solid her piece was, but it never ran. She claims to have "had evidence of a payoff," and also claims that she was told directly why the story was killed. So you can say you don't believe her, and I don't fault you for that, but her reasoning is not unsound. And again, this is just a red herring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/business/media/miramax-sue...
If you meant, "the story that proved Weinstein was a sexual predator didn't run", sure, but that begs the question. That story didn't run because that story didn't exist -- inasmuch stories "exist" when reporters find the supporting evidence.
But the story that did run is the kind of story that feels like the kind that Weinstein, if he had strong influence over the NYT's editorial desk, would kill. Because it was, as you say, the kind of story that is not too important to ignore. It's the opposite, it spotlights an otherwise obscure lawsuit about a minor Hollywood figure who is basically accused of embezzling from Miramax/Disney, a theft made possible by Weinstein's favoritism. If the NYT killed it, no one would really know or care because scandals about insignificant foreign film companies (Mirimax Italy) aren't the bread-and-butter for NYT's investigative team or Culture section.
But Waxman herself says that her foreign-reporting trip was green-lighted even before she knew the extent of the allegations, or the possibility/difficulty of gathering evidence:
> In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there.
I haven't worked at the Times, but I do feel comfortable saying that a "fairly new reporter" whose beat is Hollywood would not have the easiest time to convince bosses to fund a trip to Italy on an enterprise story that lacks hard evidence. But now we're supposed to believe that the NYT editors would approve such a project, during a time of falling revenue, in which the initial premise is that rumors of sexual scandal about their friend/secret-boss Weinstein are true? Even when it would be completely easy to just say No? To what end?
I realize I'm writing a lot of words for your side note tangent, unrelated to Indonesia. But like I said, I haven't read Chomksy's book. But I would bet that the universe of facts and connections for arguing NYT/Weinstein complicity are far more accessible and direct than what Chomsky would use to argue for media+U.S+Indonesian massacres. But if Chomsky's hypothesis is so permissive/vague that a reader like yourself (whom I assume to be reasonable and thoughtful) could argue that it applies to NYT+Weinstein, despite the published evidence (including the facts in of Waxman's own accusatory essay) and reasonable application of Hanlon's and Occam's Razor, then I feel justified in thinking that Chomsky's hypothesis may not apply to the much more complicated situation of U.S.Gov+media+Indonesia. Or that it's not much of a useful hypothesis period for assessing world events/media fuckups in general.
You have your reasons for believing that she's lying, including that "she would not have the easiest time" convincing her bosses to fund a trip, that her editor claimed not to remember a conversation, that she injected Damon and Crowe into the story to add drama, etc. I do not find these reasons at all persuasive enough to conclude that she is lying. But it doesn't matter, because it's speculation on both of our parts anyway.
If you're trying to use this particular instance to in any way judge Chomsky's book, then you're at a loss. At one extreme, Waxman made up her entire story and I was duped, in which case the conclusion is merely that this is not an example of an advertiser manipulating the media, and says nothing of Chomsky's evidence. At the other extreme, Waxman was telling the truth and Weinstein's role as an advertiser did allow him to get the story gutted. In that case, it's still insufficient to prove Chomsky's thesis. Which it was never meant to do in the first place, as it was merely presented as an illustrative example.
A pointless discussion either way.
You could probably read the relevant parts of Chomsky's book in the time we've spent here going back and forth on Waxman's believability.
I agree that is futile for me to apply this topic to a book I haven't read, though I did just get a copy and have had time to skim things. I'm not sure what to argue against. I think Chomsky is absolutely right to point out that American news outlets focus on American issues from an American perspective, and that news outlets, being for-profit companies, live-and-die by advertisers. It's not at all a coincidence -- nor does it require a conspiracy -- that a news outlet's focus and coverage reflect that of its staff and publishers. You get a college-educated mostly white staff, you'll get a lot of stories that are relevant/understandable by that demographic, which may be an OK thing if that's the news outlet's entire readership, even as it skimps on a greater moral mission to represent society's minority.
That's a valid critique, and the underlying incentives would seem to produce results that showed a consistent adherence to maintaining the status quo. I don't believe that Chomsky is the first to point this out (nor the first to do so in an empirical way), but if he's spreading the news about the realities of the news business, that's worthy enough work.
But skimming down to things in which Chomsky attempts to point out their fit in his model is less convincing. He acknowledges the "shining moments' of journalism, such as reporting the My Lai Massacre and Watergate. Chomksy says in the conclusion:
> In short, the very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence, or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite. Contrary to the usual image of an "adversary press" boldly attacking a pitiful executive giant, the media's lack of interest, investigative zeal, and basic news reporting on the accumulating illegalities of the executive branch have regularly permitted and even encouraged ever larger violations of law
But the media's action on My Lai and Watergate don't really seem to demonstrate the "exactly the opposite" of an adversarial media. The exact opposite would seem to be a media that doesn't report on these things at all. But the fact is that they did and Chomsky's explanation seems to boil down to:
- The media didn't act as fast as it could (e.g. it didn't cover the My Lai massacre the day of or after it happened)
- The supposed scandals weren't even that big of a deal, e.g. My Lai was just one of many atrocities committed by the U.S. The Watergate break-in was nothing compared to what the FBI was doing to the Socialist Workers party.
- And the media didn't go far enough in its investigative reporting, e.g. if the media really cared about My Lai, then military officers higher than a Lieutenant would have been court-martialed.
I think there is value in critiquing the lesser-celebrated details of media action/inaction, including lionized narratives of media's finest moments. But as something that purports to point out how media/government/industry complicity can explain all or even most of media's self-interested behavior? Chomsky's arguments seem virtually unfalsifiable. There is no possible unselfish/noble/independent media action that could not be waved away with his logic. But his logic is inherently self-defeating. My Lai and Watergate weren't a big deal, and the media were slow as fuck to finally cover them...OK, then that leaves completely explained why news outlets wasted considerable resources on stories that were not only inherently hostile to the U.S. government, but boring and stupid and not even significant compared to all the shit that was really happening. That argument is pretty airtight!
If by "American perspective" you mean that the news is complicit in spreading propaganda on behalf of advertisers and sources like the government, then sure, I agree. That's what Chomsky means. But I don't think you mean that, because that is not the American perspective.
Most Americans do not believe that they're being propagandized to the extent that they are, and would take issue with it if they knew the facts. If what the news reported was a simple extension of Americans' natural positions and perspectives, then there'd be no need for the propaganda in the first place.
For example, most Americans do not believe that the Vietnam war was an invasion, because it is instead reported as aiding an ally during a civil war. If we began reporting on Vietnam as an invasion and highlighting the relevant facts that made that case, do you think the natural American perspective would remain unchanged? I don't. It didn't take the German people long to feel shame for their actions in the second world war.
I think you're letting journalists off the hook here.
> But the media's action on My Lai and Watergate don't really seem to demonstrate the "exactly the opposite" of an adversarial media. The exact opposite would seem to be a media that doesn't report on these things at all.
That's an extreme standard. You're taking Chomsky's words "exact opposite" as literally as possible, when they are clearly meant to be hyperbole. He's not saying the machine is 100% effective. This isn't 1984. But it's still bad if it's even much less than that.
The media didn't cover My Lai the day after? It occurred in March 1968 and didn't gain extensive media coverage until a year and a half later in November 1969, despite extensive efforts by numerous people to publicize the story. By that time, there were already massive demonstrations in Washington and media attention was focused on antiwar protest. The cat was out of the bag, and needed to be reigned in.
Chomsky argues, convincingly, that massacres like in My Lai weren't particularly out of place, but in fact were part of a larger strategy that made such events more routine and normal than they ever should have been. In public scandal cases like these, the defense's strategy is always "scapegoat," and so you would expect the other atrocities and overall strategy to be downplayed while My Lai is highlighted and treated as exceptional, and some peon's head is offered up on a plate. And that's exactly what happened.
Rule #1 in every playbook is to offer a sacrificial lamb to the masses before they start demanding that more important heads roll. This is basic stuff. You see it in every company in crisis mode. What makes it nefarious here is that the media is complicit. The facts aren't difficult to dig up, and the American people by and large expect news outlets to report on this stuff accurately.
But they don't. They systematically filter out the stories, the facts, and even the journalists who push the wrong buttons and ask the wrong questions at inconvenient times.
It's not 100% fail proof. But it's systemic.