Published on October 26th, 2017 | by Todd Smekens0
Hypocrisy Abounds Over Harvey Weinstein Case
BLOG – I’ll make this short and sweet, Harvey Weinstein has been a sexual predator for decades and all of Hollywood knew about it and did nothing. What about the heroic and brave New York Times who published the story? They had the goods on Weinstein since 2004 but the story was killed after Harvey visited the editors and quashed the story. And what about the Obama’s and Clinton’s who accepted millions in political donations and stalled for days in condemning their political ally? What about the victims who kept silent and profited from that strategy? Did the victims who knew about Weinstein’s groping owe young actresses a “harassment-free Hollywood”?
It takes a Village to raise a child and apparently it also takes a Village to protect a sexual predator. Jonah Goldberg elaborates on the New York Times “heroic stance”:
Former Times reporter Sharon Waxman claims she had the goods on Weinstein in 2004. The Times “gutted” the piece after Weinstein, who was not just a Hollywood player and political rainmaker but also a major advertiser, visited the paper “to make his displeasure known,” Waxman said. Now some at the paper are denouncing the media’s long silence about Weinstein, even though the media were part of the problem for years.
How can our “press” hold the powerful accountable if all it takes is a threat from an advertiser to kill a story? Are they interested in the truth or profit? If it’s money, they shouldn’t be considered the point of truth Google uses to assess what’s “fake news.”
Both former president Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drug their feet in condemning Weinstein. Why?
Because Harvey was a major donor to both their campaigns and fellow democratic members. Obama sent his daughter to Harvey Weinstein’s company for an internship recently. Clinton claimed that women’s rights were the centerpiece of her campaign last year despite her actions taken toward Bill’s accusers. Her complaint of Senator Bernie Sanders was his followers were white and male so feminism wasn’t a consideration. Only after the public outcry did she and Obama speak up.
One other note, claiming not to know that Harvey Weinstein was a pig doesn’t pass the sniff test. The POTUS and Secretary Clinton had access to the entire intelligence apparatus, so any deniability is bogus. Condemning Weinstein before the public outcry would have cost them money and Hollywood connections which were more valuable than doing the right thing.
Lastly, those who follow me on Facebook know I got hammered for speaking up about Gwyneth Paltrow, who says she was harassed as a young aspiring actress nearly two decades ago. She not only stayed silent but profited very well from her silence and even applauded her abuser in public. After being called a “male chauvinist pig”, here I am doubling down on my belief.
I’m calling Gwyneth a hypocrite. Her silence twenty years ago allowed for how many more Weinstein victims? She was faced with a decision – go public and possibly end her career before it got started, or stay silent and play the Hollywood game. She chose the latter and has been applauded for her courage. She’s not courageous. She’s a fraud. Maybe it comes naturally to actors.
As a father to a young girl, I happen to agree with Jonah:
That brings me to the one group that has understandably been spared any criticism at all: the victims. I don’t condemn their silence when young and powerless. But there’s a real problem: Many stayed silent for decades, happily pocketing money from people they were willing to denounce only after it was safe — or even profitable — to do so.
That hypocrisy may be the most dangerous, because it sends the signal to young women that such compromises pay off and you can buy indulgences after you’re successful. That’s not a message I want my teenage daughter to hear.