HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lapucelle » Journal
Page: 1

lapucelle

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:17 PM
Number of posts: 11,206

Journal Archives

Maureen Dowd Silent on NYT Decision to Shield Serial Sexual Harasser

Back in December, MoDo waxed righteously indignant over Hollywood's propensity to shield and protect powerful men who harass industry women.

"There has been lip service given to fixing the inequality, but no one in power ever raised holy hell about it — not the women studio chiefs, not the male studio executives, not the unions."

snip---------------------------------------

"That’s why monsters were allowed to roam, feeling entitled to human sacrifices, vulnerable young women offered at the altar of art, ambition and box office."

snip---------------------------------------

"There are a lot of well-meaning people with power in Hollywood. But they have looked the other way for far too long on shameful imbalances."

snip-----------------------------------------

"No wonder, given the state of Washington and Hollywood, Dictionary.com chose “complicit” as its word of the year."

Ms Dowd has remained remarkably silent concerning her newspaper's decision to shield one of its own marquee name reporters after reports from multiple women detailing a disgusting pattern of serial sexual harassment.

Yes, Maureen, complicit is indeed the word of the year. It takes courage to "bring down our monsters". You make it abundantly clear that not everyone has it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opinion/sunday/sexual-harassment-salma-hayek.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fmaureen-dowd&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/business/media/glenn-thrush-sexual-misconduct.html

The NYT Continues to Shield a Prominent Reporter Accused of Serial Harassment

Apparently, the New York Times considers itself an exception to the rules and has little problem employing a double standard in the service of shielding and protecting one of its top money makers, serial sexual harasser Glenn Thrush.

As per the original story in Vox:

Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differently about these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.

Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.

From the HuffPo story:

“We’re not really sure what the message is here,” one woman told HuffPost. “I feel really conflicted.” Another lamented that while the Times took careful steps to nurture and protect its star male reporter, there were loads of women struggling to get help with flat-lining careers inside the newsroom. For her, the Thrush decision was another painful reminder of how the Times is failing its female reporters.

Every woman who works at the Times has to go to work tomorrow knowing that that’s the decision they made,” Kate Harding, who hosts the Feminasty podcast, tweeted Wednesday. “That’s whose career matters. That’s who they’ll go the extra mile for.

According to Business Insider, many women at Vox (which broke the story) were unhappy with a Vanity Fair story's minimization on the impact to the victims, saying it:

"papered over the accusations against Thrush, and set the stage for his return to the Times."

Maggie Haberman, a long time friend of Thrush, who landed a lucrative deal for a book she will co-write with the offender, has made no public comment on either Thrush's history of sleazy serial harassment or her employer's decision to shield him.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/20/16678094/glenn-thrush-new-york-times

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-york-times-thrush-women_us_5a3c0b28e4b0b0e5a7a0b49f

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/business/media/glenn-thrush-suspension-white-house.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/21/the-new-york-times-angers-and-puzzles-some-journalists-by-keeping-accused-sexual-harasser-glenn-thrush/?utm_term=.655cf645e4cc

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-divided-over-glenn-thrush-sexual-harassment-allegations-2017-12

How to counter the Shumer Shutdown talking point

The purely procedural vote to invoke cloture is being framed by Republicans and their strategists as a “vote to shut down the government”. Actually it was a vote to end the filibuster and bring the CR to continue short-term government funding to a vote on the Senate floor. It needed 60 votes to pass.

The fact that the measure failed by a vote of 49-50 is being used by Republicans (who are counting on the ignorance of some voters and the superficiality of much of the news coverage) as an example of Democratic obstructionism. They are banking on the fact that many will not realize that this was not a close vote, that 5 Democrats voted for the measure, and that 5 Republicans (including McConnell whose vote was purely procedurally strategic) voted with the majority of Democrats.

Despite these facts, Republican and RW talking heads will frame this as a close vote with Schumer instructing his caucus to obstruct, thereby forcing a government shutdown.

If Republicans want to frame this procedural vote as a “vote to shut down the government”, counter the talking points with these facts:

Five Republicans voted “yes”.
Five Democrats voted “no”.
The vote failed 49-50
McConnell and Schumer voted the exact same way.

If I encounter someone who understands the nuances of last night's procedural vote, I am simply going to point out the following: The vote was not even close because Trump/McConnell failed to win over 5 members of their own party and 3 additional Democrats and/or Independents. This is a Republican failure.

Fight back with facts: McConnell voted WITH the Democrats last night

against the motion to invoke cloture, as did 4 other Republicans.

Meanwhile, 5 Democrats cast the same "yea" vote as did the majority of Republicans. This is not "Schumer's Shutdown".

Yes, I know that McConnell's and the 5 Democratic votes were purely strategic and that the measure to end debate needed 60 votes to pass, but facts are facts. The measure failed by a vote of 50-49 with 5 Republicans, including the Senate majority leader, voting on the Democratic side. Casting strategic and/or ideological votes should not be a privilege reserved for Republicans.

Schumer and McConnell cast the EXACT SAME VOTE last night.

I'm going to drive that point home.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/s14

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr195

Twitter Trashes Chris Matthews Over Cosby Pill Joke

"The leaked clip of Chris Matthews joking about a “Bill Cosby pill” ahead of a Hillary Clinton interview has gotten widespread condemnation on Twitter."


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/951929712191983616

https://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-trashes-chris-matthews-over-cosby-pill-joke-makes-me-feel-ill/
Go to Page: 1