- यौन-उत्पीड़न के आरोपों के स्कोर पिछले कुछ महीनों में मीडिया में सूचना दी गई है। आरोपों में राजनीति, मीडिया और मनोरंजन प्रमुख पुरुषों को लक्षित किया है।
- कई पत्रकारों न्यूयॉर्क टाइम्स खोजी संवाददाता जोड़ी Kantor, वाशिंगटन पोस्ट योगदानकर्ता इरिन कारमन, और हॉलीवुड रिपोर्टर संपादक पर बड़े किम मास्टर्स सहित इन कहानियों, की जांच की है।
- व्यापार अंदरूनी सूत्र के इग्निशन सम्मेलन, एलिसन Shontell, व्यापार अंदरूनी सूत्र के अमेरिका एडिटर-इन-चीफ में अपनी रिपोर्टिंग के बारे में पत्रकारों के साथ बात की।
कार्यस्थल में यौन उत्पीड़न के बारे में राष्ट्रीय बातचीत पत्रकारों के काम जिसका रिपोर्टिंग पिक्सर की तरह पुरुषों के दरकिनार करने के लिए नेतृत्व के साथ शुरू जॉन लासेटर और जैसे शक्तिशाली सितारों की फायरिंग चार्ली रोज तथा मैट Lauer।
जोड़ी Kantor, इरिन कारमन, और किम मास्टर्स: व्यापार अंदरूनी सूत्र के हाल के इग्निशन सम्मेलन में अमेरिका एडिटर-इन-चीफ एलिसन Shontell पत्रकारों जो पिछले कुछ महीनों में इन कहानियों को तोड़ने की है के तीन के साथ बात की।
Kantor दो न्यूयॉर्क टाइम्स ने संवाददाताओं से जो तोड़ दिया में से एक है हार्वे वीन्स्टीन उत्पीड़न कहानी। अफवाहें एक लंबे समय के लिए उसके बारे में घूम कर दिया गया था, और वह और मेगन Twohey अंत में इसे किसी न किसी। उनकी जांच के लिए एक राष्ट्रीय गणना शुरू कर दिया।
"यह पल एक संगठन, 'इन कहानियों में से कितने है कि इस तरह कर रहे हैं, वहाँ रहे हैं के रूप में जब हम ने कहा था,? कितने अन्य महिलाओं को शांत कर दिया है? ' "Kantor इग्निशन में कहा।
बाद उनके लेख प्रकाशित किया, जलद्वार खोला। Carmon वाशिंगटन पोस्ट में एक योगदानकर्ता है, और वह करने के लिए पहली बार था रिपोर्ट कथित तौर पर उत्पीड़न कि चार्ली रोज का जलने के लिए नेतृत्व पर। वह कथित तौर पर पीड़ितों के साथ फोन पर रात और सप्ताहांत का एक बहुत खर्च किया।
"हम घंटे बिताए इंसानों की तरह उनसे बात, उन्हें संरक्षण नहीं किया जा रहा," Carmon कहा। "पेशेवर होने के नाते, लेकिन यह भी जानकारी के साथ जिम्मेदार जा रहा है उन्होंने हमें बताया कि, बहुत जल्दी बहुत कठिन धक्का नहीं है।"
मास्टर्स हॉलीवुड रिपोर्टर पर संपादक-एट-बड़ी है, और वह साल के लिए उत्पीड़न ताज़ा कहानियों किया गया है। अभी हाल ही में वह पिक्सर के जॉन लासेटर की कहानी को तोड़ दिया और वह भी अमेज़न स्टूडियो मालिक द्वारा हनन की कहानी सुनाई रॉय मूल्य।
हम व्यापार अंदरूनी सूत्र के पॉडकास्ट, "सफलता की एक विशेष प्रकरण में उस बातचीत कर दिया! मैं यह कैसे किया। "वे क्यों वे इन कहानियों, वे कैसे स्रोतों (और उनके गैर प्रकटीकरण समझौते) के साथ काम नेविगेट जांच की, और क्या उन्हें लगता है कि अगले अपनी रिपोर्टिंग में आ जाएगा के बारे में बात की थी।
प्रकरण को सुनें:
- एनबीसी न्यूज मेजबान मेगिन कैली
- लेखक और निवेशक टिम Ferriss
- लिंक्डइन संस्थापक रीड हॉफमैन
- और एक "मास्टर कक्षा" हमारे मेहमानों से नेतृत्व सलाह पर प्रकरण
मास्टर्स 1980 के अंत में समय था जब वह हार्वे वीन्स्टीन के चेहरे से कहा, के बारे में बताकर हमारी बातचीत शुरू कर दिया "मैंने सुना है आप महिलाओं का बलात्कार।"
बाद साक्षात्कार है, जो हल्के से स्पष्टता के लिए संपादित किया गया है की एक प्रतिलिपि है।
किम मास्टर्स: It was the first time I met Harvey; it was lunch in Beverly Hills. I had written stuff about him that he didn’t like. He came rushing up to the table. It was the first time I had met him face to face, and he’s yelling, very aggressive: “Why do you write this about me? Why do you write this about me? What have you heard about me?” And I felt like, do it right now, and I said, “I heard you rape women.”
And I thought I’d never be able to tell that story of course. It was an off-the-record lunch, so I’ve never said exactly how he answered. But I will say if not an outraged denial, it was a really quite a feeling to think “Oh my God” and know going forward that periodically we would try again, try again, try again. And so it took until these guys, and Ronan Farrow, finally broke the door down, but by then I was happy anybody was doing it.
रॉय मूल्य। मैं एक स्रोत मेरे पास आते हैं था, और मुझे लगता है कि यह यह कहना क्योंकि वहाँ महिलाओं के इलाज के पुरुषों के बारे में इस बात के सभी हो गया है महत्वपूर्ण है, लेकिन उस पर मूल स्रोतों पुरुषों के लिए जो बहुत ही इस व्यवहार से निराश थे।
तो मैं इसके बारे में सुना। जैसा कि आपने कहा, मैं एक बहुत ही मुश्किल समय था, और लासेटर, एक बार हार्वे कहानी को तोड़ दिया, मैं लासेटर के बारे में एक फोन मिल गया है, और मुझे लगता है कि एक मैं कहाँ सोचा था, कहना है, "मैं सिर्फ यह नहीं सुन सकते?" की तरह, यह इतना बड़ा था। यह पिक्सार और डिज़्नी एनीमेशन था, और मैं मानता होगा, मैं इसके लिए गोता पसंद नहीं था, लेकिन मैं अंत में पता था कि यह वास्तविक था, और हम आगे जाने के लिए किया था।
Shontell: और, जोड़ी, आपने कहा था, तो आप इस जानता था - संवाददाताओं है कि इस हार्वे वीन्स्टीन कहानी क्या करने की कोशिश की थी की एक कब्रिस्तान था, और न प्रकाशित करने के लिए पर्याप्त प्राप्त करने में सक्षम हो गया था। इसलिए जब इस एक सच्ची कहानी है कि आप से निपटने के लिए प्रयास करने के लिए क्यों अब जा रहे थे, और था, आपको लगता है था कि यह अब क्या हुआ?
जोड़ी Kantor: You know, the strange thing about this Harvey story is it kind of entered popular culture, on the one hand, had the Oscar nominations in 2013, the comedian Seth MacFarlane made a joke about it. He announced the five actresses names for some award, and he said: “Congratulations, ladies. You no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” So on the one hand, it was discussed like that, but there had never been a kind of real story documenting the allegations; nothing had even been nailed down. So it was pretty intimidating.
But the way we came into it was The Times made a huge commitment to sexual-harassment reporting this year. I know it sounds like a very long time ago, but it actually wasn’t. My colleagues Emily Steel and Michael Schmidt broke open the Bill O’Reilly story, about the payments he had made to women over the years to quiet these allegations. And internally, their project was obviously very important in terms of the impact the made on the world, but it was important internally at The Times, too, because it was really a wake-up call for us, and it was the moment when we said, as an organization, “How many of these stories are out there, that are like this? How many other women have been quieted?” We knew that sexual harassment existed, of course, but what really became clear is that the kind of mechanisms of silencing and cover-up might be far more vast, and elaborate, than anybody had realized.
And it was also a point when we said, “This is our duty as investigative reporters because we’re in a unique position.” I mean, I love your story about what you said to Harvey, because, to me it speaks to the social license that journalists have. I mean, your kind of superpower is that you could actually go up to him at a party and confront him about that, which most people can’t, and so we said, ‘Let’s try to put the puzzle pieces together. Let’s try to see if there’s a pattern here.” And that’s when we started looking at the Harvey story.
Shontell: और, Irin, आप चार्ली रोज बारे में सुना है, और यह लग रहा है जैसे कहानी एक साथ बहुत जल्दी से आया था - 17 दिन या कुछ और की तरह।
इरिन कारमन: Yeah, it was an unusual trajectory, and I’ve said that it sort of stands on the shoulders of some of the reporting that was done, including by the women on this stage, and by Ronan Farrow. I first became aware of this story in 2010, when I was a reporter at Jezebel. And at the time it was two women, one a job applicant, one an assistant, who had been sexually harassed, allegedly, by Charlie, and it was so … You know how people talk about the open secret, but I think if there was an open secret about Charlie Rose it was that he was flirtatious, not that he was a predator, in the same way as Harvey Weinstein. So it was certainly dissonant with the public image.
I think it’s interesting when you talk about the institutional commitment. At the time, where I was working, we covered sexism and misogyny, and systems that protect them, but we didn’t really have the institutional resources to report on it properly. So I was given time, I was given support to work on it, but when none of the women I had heard about second or third hand would speak to me or go on the record, and I couldn’t really get past the initial thing, I was reassigned to something else. And subsequently even just thinking about this kind of behavior merits the deep resources of a place like The New York Times or The Washington Post or Variety or The New Yorker, or The Hollywood Reporter, I do think there had to be a shift to say we’re gonna but serious investigative resources and editing on this.
When the cultural moment that emerged in the wake of The New York Times reporting, and The New Yorker, and the Amazon Roy Price reporting, I just thought, “I gotta go back to this.” I know I’m not the only person that went back to a cold case. And I had a relationship with The Washington Post. I had been writing for the Outlook section, and it’s pretty unusual to have a freelance reporter walk up to you and say “can I do this piece about this very wealthy, well connected, well-regarded person,” but I immediately got the support that I needed from The Washington Post. I was paired with a reporter named Amy Briton, who I had never met before, who’s an investigative reporter, and two editors on the investigative team, and they just said, you know, “Tell us what you have,” and we just started reporting together, form there, and 17 days later it was on the front page of The Washington Post. And I do think that there had to be the readiness for these women also to process what had happened to them or what they said had happened to them. And so I don’t think that the story was ripe before. And a few of them said, “I feel guilty that I didn’t talk to you back then because I have heard of other women that this happened to, but I just wasn’t ready.”
Shontell: तो अगर आप इन नामों सुना है, आप जानते हैं कि यह हो सकता है कि, एक बड़ी खबर। आप कहां से शुरू करना, आप कैसे लोगों को खोजने, उन्हें बाहर तक पहुंच गया है, और उन्हें प्रतिक्रिया करने के लिए हो रही शुरू करूँ? यह बहुत संवेदनशील है।
मास्टर्स: ठीक है, मैं हॉलीवुड काफी देर के लिए हॉलीवुड कवर करने में किया गया है, इसलिए अच्छी बातें है कि मैं विकसित किया है में से एक लोग का एक नेटवर्क है, और क्या मैं कुछ मामलों में इस कहानी कर पाया है, है, भले ही मैं कुछ और के बारे में किसी को फोन कर रहा हूँ, यह मेरी जबकि ड्रॉप करने के लायक है एक कनेक्शन मैंने सोचा था कि संभव कभी नहीं अचानक यहाँ है क्योंकि "मैं इस में देख रहा हूँ"।
In the case of Amazon, this one particular individual gave me a tremendous road map. I mean, he didn’t just give it to me. I had to go meet with him and sit with him, and gradually, try this, try that. I mean, the woman at the center of that, one of the key people was Isa Hackett, one of the daughters of Philip K. Dick, and had had this encounter with him, and it took me forever just to find out which. He kept giving me hints because he felt guilty, honestly, about pulling her in, if she didn’t want to be pulled it. As it turned out, she was a tremendously courageous person. But it still took her forever. You know, with Lasseter, I covered animation off and on back to the days of “Roger Rabbit.” I know animators, and even though my connections are a little rusty, there are certain people to call, like, “Try this,” and it was waiting to happen at that point, I think, like waiting to happen. So it depends, where it comes from and if that person’s willing to say, “I’ll tell people, give me names to call, even if you’re confident that they won’t talk to me,” just because that helps me muddy the trail, and protect my sources.
Shontell: और, जोड़ी, मेरा मतलब है, आप न्यूयॉर्क टाइम्स के लिए कुछ फिल्म टुकड़े से पहले किया है। अमेज़न एक है कि बाहर खड़ा है, जहां कि अमेज़न कहानी के लिए 100 लोगों का साक्षात्कार किया है, और और इन सब बातों से प्रतिक्रिया करने के जेफ बेजोस मिला है, लेकिन यह मनोरंजन दुनिया में यौन उत्पीड़न की तरह कुछ की तुलना में एक बहुत अलग कहानी है। तो आपको कैसे ताल पर एक पारंपरिक इतिहास के बिना में आते हैं,।
कार्यालय: कुछ मायनों में मुझे लगता है कि हार्वे पर मदद की है हो सकता है, कि हम बाहरी लोगों के थे, क्योंकि एक विषय के लिए नया आ रहा है जिसे आप वहन करता है, एक हाथ पर, मैं लंबा इतिहास और ज्ञान किम हॉलीवुड के बारे में है कि ऐसा कुछ भी नहीं था। लेकिन क्या आप जानते रिपोर्टिंग के बारे में सब ठंड में बुला वैसे भी, और यह आपको कुछ पूरी तरह से ताजा करने के लिए आने के लिए सक्षम बनाता है, और किसी को यह कहते हुए नहीं है, या जो कुछ भी "ओह, तुम्हें पता है, मुझे लगता है कि कहानी आप तीन टुकड़े पहले लिखा नफरत"।
Shontell: वहाँ रणनीति आप का इस्तेमाल किया या चीजें हैं जो resonated कि वास्तव में किए गए लोगों का एहसास क्या एक बड़ी बात यह हो सकता है रहे थे? एमिली की तरह स्टील एक स्रोत से बात करने की देश भर में एक योग कक्षा में चला गया।
मास्टर्स: My strategy is always to go with integrity, and I feel like that projects itself. I had a source with an NDA, in the Amazon thing, and she said, “I want to go on the record, but what will happen to me? Should I go on the record?” I said, “I can’t advise you to do it.” Like, she was not a powerful player, and, in many cases, you know, talking to Isa Hackett as she thought about going public, I would just say to her, “You absolutely decide. This is your call.”
बस यह स्पष्ट है कि हम किसी अन्य व्यक्ति के लिए उन्हें बाहर कुछ और उनके सिर के साथ गड़बड़ पाने के लिए होने की कोशिश नहीं कर रहे है कि बनाने के लिए। और मैं सिर्फ जल्दी से कहेंगे, जो कोई आगे आ गया है, और हम लोग हैं, जो हमारे लिए निबंध लिखा है, जो मुझे फोन किया और मुझे एक कहानी सुनाई लिया है, और मैं की तरह हूँ, "आपको लगता है कि लिख सकते हैं?" वे इस तरह के रेचन और रिहाई लग रहा है। और मुझे लगता है कि यह वास्तव में महत्वपूर्ण स्रोत पता करने के लिए के लिए है - संभावित स्रोतों - कि हर मामले मैं अब तक के साथ पेश किया है में, यह सिर्फ एक वजन उठा लिया गया है।
Carmon: It’s interesting because I’ve spent hours on the phone, or in person, with the women we wrote about, for the Charlie Rose story, and you learn a little bit about why they might want to talk to you and why they might not want to talk to you, and they have good reasons in both cases. So some of the reasons that I heard were “I want to support The Washington Post because they’re investigating things that I care about”; “I don’t want this to happen to anyone else”; or “I read the Harvey Weinstein story and now I realize that happened to me was similar.” We even had “The two of you are young women and we want to support you,” because Amy and me are in our early 30s.
So you hear all the reasons, and then all the reasons about why they don’t want to go on the record, which are all valid reasons. We do not have NDAs in Charlie Rose/PBS, but there were lots of good reasons. “I’m a single mom,” “I’m between jobs,” “I’m ashamed,” “I should have said no,” “I should have fought more,” “I shouldn’t have gone to the apartment,” “I have an abusive husband.” These are all reasons that came up again and again with women who decided to go on the record.
And so what I think about what really made the difference in that piece, first of all, is having names. Because we’re bringing the full integrity of the process here. And then it’s also that we spent hours talking to them like human beings. Not being patronizing to them, being professional, but also being responsible with the information they had told us, not pushing too hard too soon. I mean 17 days was very fast, but at the same time compared to the way you have to do other stories, where you’re like, “I need you to go on the record right now,” Amy and I were both on the phone at, like, six in the morning, different time zones, checking in with them every day to see, you know, “How are you feeling today?” Even when you don’t want anything. And if you are reporting on this you’re talking to people who have credible allegations of harm, right? Where you believe it enough to put it in the paper, and it’s substantiated in all of these ways, and yet you’re the one nagging them. You need to push past their initial consent. You don’t want to re-traumatize anybody, but you also need to make a good argument for why this is an important story, which will be so much stronger if your name is on it and if you tell the world “This is what happened to me.”
कार्यालय: मुझे लगता है कि Irin वास्तव में एक दिलचस्प गतिशील पर मारा है, जो इन आरोपों की प्रकृति है कि वे अतीत में दबाव डाला महसूस किया है, और इसलिए आप उन्हें एक पत्रकार के रूप में दबाव डालने के लिए, आप नहीं होने पर भी आह्वान है कि चाहते हैं नहीं करना चाहती है कि गतिशील थोड़ी सी भी बिट, लेकिन यह भी अपने काम है आत्मविश्वास और साथ आगे बढ़ने के लिए -
कार्यालय: हठ, और उचित reportorial आक्रामकता की एक निश्चित राशि। तो यह एक बहुत अच्छा संतुलन है।
Carmon: Right, and you have to be adversarial at times. You have to say, like, “I need to ask you tough questions,” like, “Why didn’t you do this?” or “Who else did you tell?” And, you know, “What does that person know? Do they know the whole story?’ so it’s not the same as obviously going to Gloria Allred, where someone will hold their hand and say, “I believe you no matter what. You don’t have to tell me anything.” So it’s kind of a complex relationship in that way.
Shontell: Sometimes when you’re reporting these stories you’re knocking on a lot of doors and just not getting anywhere, and then all of a sudden there’s one source that’s so helpful to you. They tell you something you never knew before, maybe like the Lauren O’Connor memo that was cited a lot. Maybe that was a big get when you got it. Was there something that happened that took it from “This is important but I don’t know if I get it” to “Oh, my God — this is happening”?
मास्टर्स: Roy Price, Amazon. I was all by myself; I didn’t hear footsteps of any other publication. So I don’t know. I think the key thing was that Isa felt that he was going to keep doing this to people and she couldn’t stand that, and the other side of the coin for her was, “You know, I don’t want my whole show, my crew, and my cast, to feel this weirdness being at Amazon, and that’s uncomfortable. So that was a different thing. I really had too much time to be tortured, trying to get the Roy Price thing published. With Lasseter, I knew other people were chasing, and I started feeling like this may be really not fun to do, but you’ve got to do it, because it’s not my job to wait to be scooped.
कार्यालय: For Megan and me with the Harvey Weinstein story, it was really all about the pattern. It was about the process. We wrote this, and the first story I think says something like, “Women from all these different places, over a 30-year time span, women who don’t know each other, some women were employees, some women were actress, and yet they told such similar stories. They varied in the severity. We know that there’s a range of allegations against Weinstein, that range from hotel-room harassment, requests for massages on the one hand, all the way to assault and rape. So the severity varies greatly, but there’s also a kind of numbing repetition to the stories, and it’s sort of funny because when you’re talking to the women, every woman’s story is important and should be honored in its own way, and you want to listen to it very carefully. But on the other hand, when you’re listening to it — I’ve never tried to count, but the number of individual, kind of like, “Harvey incident” stories I’ve heard, it’s a really high number, and the pattern is really, really striking. And so the question we started asking in our reporting was, “How come we’re hearing the same story from so many people?”
Shontell: और यह भी कहानियों भर की तरह लगता है, स्नान बात की तरह है, जैसे, "हे भगवान - यह एक पैटर्न है।"
Carmon: हाँ, स्नान वस्त्र और होटल के कमरे, हाँ।
कार्यालय: हाँ, और जब मैं अपने चार्ली रोज कहानी, Irin पढ़ा है, मैं बहुत उसे निजी स्थानों जहां उन्होंने कथित तौर इन अनुचित बातें किया था में महिलाओं को आमंत्रित करने के विचार से, मारा क्योंकि उस वीन्स्टीन पैटर्न का इतना याद ताजा करती थी।
मास्टर्स: I actually completely got chills reading that, because the first time I met Charlie Rose, which — I don’t know him well — sitting next to him on a couch, and his hand went right there. And then fast forward he called me, which is a pattern you present in your thing, and said, “What do you think I should ask this guest on my show?” And I thought, not until I read you story, like, “Jeez, he had me like two-thirds of the way there.”
Carmon: Yeah, when the story came out, other women texted us or emailed us and said, “I can’t believe he used that line on her too,” you know, the line “I’m Southern; we’re touchers.” Not everything was quantified in the story. We kind of just focused on the most important and the most serious allegations, but there were certain commonalities. I was going to say exactly the same thing. And this was not a glib or a flip thing, but at a certain point, Amy and I took a piece of paper and we made a chart, and we had each one of the behaviors that we saw, ranging from leg grabbing all the way up to sexual-assault allegations, and we were kind of just checking off each of the women, and so it was a very grim game of bingo, where this came up again and again, and when we started hearing those from people who had not worked at the same time at the show, or have not been referred to us by somebody else, even if they didn’t know each other, some people would say, “Oh, you should talk to this intern or this assistant,” so it was at the cold-call stage, moving beyond the initial circle, that we realized that there really was a pattern, and that it did involve the bathrobe, and the Bellport house, for example, came up again and again.
Shontell: So one thing that’s come up is this NDA culture. Talk about that a little bit.
कार्यालय: I think there are two forms of NDAs that are important here. There are the NDAs that company employees sign routinely, and Amazon and The Weinstein Company and Miramax have all used those. And then there are confidentiality agreements that come with settlements, and that means that, as I think most people now understand, if a woman has allegations, the sort of routine response is that she goes to a lawyer, and unless she wants to fully go to court, which is very hard, she often will get a settlement. The problem with those settlements is that they come with these really strict confidentiality agreements. Sometimes they are to the woman’s advantage. There are women who say, “I don’t want anyone to know about this. I want my life to proceed as usual,” et cetera. But the confidentiality agreements can also be enabling in way because the women are silenced, and it means that the people who know the most about the problematic behavior, really can’t warm other women, you know, or continue to report them, or go public, et cetera. So those are the kind of two silencing elements that we’ve looked a lot at.
Shontell: और अगर आप अपने आस-पास कैसे मिला?
कार्यालय: यह लोगों एनडीए को तोड़ने के लिए पूछने के लिए एक बहुत दिनचर्या पत्रकारिता बातचीत बन गया है। ऐसा नहीं है कि आपको लगता है कि एक औरत यह करने के लिए नहीं करना चाहता था मेरे लिए दिलचस्प है।
मास्टर्स: I wanted her to. She was already telling me what she knew. The question was, would she put her name to it on the record, and that put, I thought, it would be putting her at tremendous risk. I don’t know that the law is particularly settled. I think that this is a huge policy issue that needs to be addressed — covering up wrongdoing with these NDAs. So I couldn’t in good conscious say, “Go ahead.” Because I called a couple of lawyers. It was muddy, and, I thought, she was young, low of the totem pole. I thought she’d already had enough happen to her. I didn’t want to open her up to another round.
कार्यालय: And then with the confidentiality agreements that come with settlements, you have to figure out a way how to report the settlement, without putting with woman in legal jeopardy. And what I’d say is a lot of people end up knowing about settlements. If you look at the settlements and Miramax and The Weinstein Company, it was not a case where only Harvey and the woman and like one other person knew about them. These settlement are processes, they take a lot of people to be executed, they create mystery, right? All of a sudden a woman vanishes, and you know she’s gone from work and what happened? People end up hearing about the settlements. Now the really interesting thing that’s happening is that women are breaking those confidentiality agreements. We’ve had, I want to say two, so far. Zelda Perkins and Ashley Matthau are Harvey Weinstein victims who have broken their settlement confidentiality agreements, because they’ve essentially said, “I have to speak out now, in the public interest, about what’s happened to me,” and, as far as I know, they haven’t suffered and negative consequences for that.
मास्टर्स: और अगर किसी को पहले से ही है कि वे क्या कर रहे हैं के लिए सामने आ रहा है, जोखिम कम हो जाती। उस समय यह है, जैसे, "आप पर मुकदमा करना चाहते हैं मुझे? "
कार्यालय: आप इस बारे में डिस्कवर प्रक्रिया में प्राप्त करना चाहते हैं।
Carmon: यह केवल के रूप में प्रवर्तन प्रक्रिया के रूप में अच्छा, ठीक है? और एक बार में कई लोगों नतीजों के बिना यह हड्डी टूट गई है यह आसान है।
Shontell: तो रिकॉर्ड है, यह करने के महत्व पर लोगों के बारे में बात करते हैं। तुम भी प्रकाशित हो सकता था अगर आप रिकॉर्ड पर लोग नहीं था? कैसे आप उस दिशा में एक स्रोत के लिए कदम है और उन्हें कुछ है कि उन्हें गूगल पर का पालन करेंगे चाहे वे कहीं भी जाने के लिए हर भावी नियोक्ता के लिए, पर उनके नाम डाल करने के लिए मिलता है। वह कैसे काम करता है?
Carmon: In the case of our story it was really important for us to get people on the record. The feeling, as somebody who is such a public figure, works for three major media companies, has relationships with Bloomberg, CBS, and PBS, you know, you really want this story to be absolutely airtight, nail down every word, and all the names that you can, so there were a few dynamics. One dynamic was the safety in numbers; nobody wants to be the first person.
So we were really lucky, Amy and I, that we were working with the same team of investigative editors who had just published the story on Roy Moore, and that had three women on the record. So we were able to draw on their advice, and their resources, on the best way to do this, and also to point our sources to the way that the Roy Moore story had been done, which was with great sensitivity.
So part of it was at the beginning of the conversation saying to them, “There won’t be any surprises; you’re not going to pick up The Washington Post tomorrow and see your story. This is a long-term thing. I’m not going to rush you, but that is something I’m going to be asking you.” That was sort of step one, was to make it really clear to be really transparent about the process, that this is not a gotcha game, this is not an “I need to push publish right this minute; let’s talk about what we can do here.”
और कोई भी पहले बनना चाहता है, लेकिन आप उन दोनों के बीच समन्वय स्थापित नहीं कर सकते, आप प्रक्रिया की अखंडता को बहुत वायुरुद्ध, और इसलिए, एक निश्चित बिंदु पर, क्या हमने किया हम करने के लिए महिलाओं में से कुछ से अनुमति मिल गया था रखने के लिए अन्य स्रोतों के साथ उनकी कहानियों का हिस्सा, उनके नाम के बिना, या उनके नाम के साथ, क्या अपनी पसंद था पर निर्भर करता है।
And so we both just started reading portions of the transcripts, again, with the women’s permission of an off-the record conversation, to the other women. The first person to go on the record was a person who realized that someone had said she was violently assaulted, after she had worked there, after she had been an assistant to Charlie Rose, and so she just said, “If this is going to make a big difference for you story” — and again, people have all kinds of good reasons not to put their names on this kind of story — that was ultimately what did it. And there was another woman who we describe in the story. She feels like what happened to her wasn’t very serious, but she said, “If my name being in this will help the other women feel less alone, then I will go on the record.” Then we had two, then we had three.
मास्टर्स: This was a big problem for me with the Amazon story, because everyone who was a key source either worked at Amazon or had their business life depended on a deal with Amazon. And I have to say, I have somewhat unorthodox feelings because I had nobody on the record, but five people agreed that if he were to sue us they would identify themselves and testify truthfully. They agreed in writing. And Amazon acknowledged that he had been investigated. So I felt like that should get into the end zone. That didn’t convince every editor. It ultimately kind of worked, with a little bit of a comment from Isa Hackett, and then she finally went all the way on the record.
But I think that we don’t name rape victims. I feel like we should be able to break these stories. The NPR story was broken with nobody on the record, because NPR did acknowledge the problem. So I think we have to think maybe, not so much like, “You must go on the record — you’re a victim” — I don’t find the logic that. I feel like we should find other ways if people aren’t willing or can’t. I don’t think we should ask people to commit professional suicide to do a story.
Shontell: आप सभी पर दबाव। आप शक्तिशाली लोग हैं, जो पैसे और संसाधनों का एक बहुत कुछ है के साथ काम कर रहे हैं। मैं रोनन फैरो ने एक के रूप में वर्णित "हॉगवर्ट्स पल," हार्वे वीन्स्टीन के वकीलों, जहां खतरों की तरह पत्र उसके घर, खिड़कियां, और चिमनी के सभी दरारों से आ रहे थे के साथ के रूप में लगता है। और इसलिए आप सभी पर की तरह दबाव था, और आप इसे के साथ कैसे पेश आया?
Well, the world has since learned. And, more important, our sources faced significant intimidation in reporting the Harvey story. I don’t know if I was more horrified or amused to learn about the attempts that had been made to dupe me. I mean, I knew strange things were going on, but more became clear afterwards, and that a dossier was prepared on me.
But actually, in real time, that was not the pressure I faced. What Megan and I really felt over the summer was the pressure not to let this story slip away. It scared us that so many great journalists hadn’t been able to land it. And once we understood the material that we were dealing with, the senses of obligation that we felt, as journalists and human beings, so much has happened since then. But remember that when we were doing this story over the summer, very few people knew about it, and I was terrified by the idea of what it would mean to fail. And so I think that was the greatest pressure that I faced.
Shontell: This has created hopefully much more than a movement. It certainly feels like we’re at a moment in time when things are changing and people are able to come forward and feel empowered to do so. Are we just at the beginning of this? Is actual change happening? Is it going to be a moment that passes and things are going to continue as they have been?
Carmon: We’re in an amazing moment of reporting, and it feels like reporting is such a good way to talk about this particular kind of abuse of power. Let’s put it this way, sexual harassment is not a crime in the workplace, right? It’s a violation of someone’s civil rights. The reason we have sexual-harassment laws is that they fall under equal-opportunity laws, so they have to do with people’s workplace behavior and professional behavior, and so I think that, especially when it comes to sexual assault even, which is under the criminal law, the criminal-justice system is not necessarily the best way for us to understand this as a social problem.
Gossip, where a lot of this lived before, ill-serves all of the people involved in it. Investigative reporting I think can really help us understand just how endemic of a problem this is. It’s not specific to any particular industry, so I’m really encouraged by reporting organizations who are putting amazing people like the women who are on this stage, on this story, so that we can keep understanding all the nuances and all the complexity, because one of the women on the record in our story, she felt like, “Oh, I sent him emails after that fact, that were very sycophantic, like this completely disqualifies my story,” and I could say to her, “You know, Asia Argento, in The New Yorker’s story, she had a consensual relationship with Harvey after, and people understand her to be a victim,” and so, this is a really complicated story, and I think that the reporting process in particular, shedding light on all the complex ways this plays out of people’s lives, is really important.
मास्टर्स: I knew there was sexual harassment in Hollywood before. I didn’t realize how pervasive it really was. And when I look at institutions, studios, certain studios, the agencies, what I realize is, the reason that women don’t do better in terms of their representation in the workforce, in the executive suites, in all the jobs in Hollywood, is that these guys have had a culture, in many of these places that is an absolute free for all, and they don’t want women spoiling it. And that is the real reason why women are so dramatically underrepresented year after year in what is supposed to be a progressive world.
I was listening last night to a story about a studio chairman about outrageous conduct, and he doesn’t want that spoiled by a woman witnessing that. The only change comes when women are better represented and that club is broken up.
कार्यालय: The reason why what’s happening now is so important is that we’re getting this horrifyingly realistic view into what really happens. All of us are shocked and saddened, and riveted and staggered, by what turns out to be the differential between appearance and reality. If we want to take it to the present moment and go back to yesterday and talk about collectively learning about the Matt Lauer allegations, part of what is really disturbing about those allegations is the difference between what was on the surface, of being this kind of genial morning TV host, and then reading these stories in Variety and The Times and other publications about what he allegedly did to women behind closed doors.
जब तक आप उस खाई को उपस्थिति, और फिर महिलाओं के निजी अनुभवों, समाज उन समस्याओं, सही पता करने के लिए अगर हम उनके बारे में पता नहीं है शुरू नहीं कर सकते के रूप में? और इसलिए मुझे आशा है कि आप जानते हैं, के रूप में Irin ने कहा, यह एक रिपोर्टिंग पल, जब हम एक तरह से रिबूट और क्या वास्तव में हो रहा है के बारे में सच्चाई जानने की जरूरत की तरह है। और फिर उम्मीद है कि हम आगे बढ़ जाएं।
Shontell: के लिए आप जबरदस्त काम आप सभी को धन्यवाद। दुनिया इसके लिए बेहतर है। कीप आईटी उप।