She Said

“Our Weinstein reporting took place at a time of accusations of ‘fake news,’ as the very notion of a national consensus on truth seemed to be fracturing. But the impact of the Weinstein revelations was so great in part because we and other journalists were able to establish a clear and overwhelming body of evidence of wrongdoing.” 

The authors contextualize their investigative journalism. Not only were they up against the powerful machine that Harvey Weinstein had created, but they also faced an incredulous public that questioned the very truth of factual news reporting. Nevertheless, they successfully proved that Weinstein committed multiple assaults through the use of extensive written, legal, and financial records, as well as on-the-record interviews with victims. This sort of evidence is especially important in cases of sexual harassment and assault, where sexist biases may otherwise lead people to discount survivors’ stories.

“The book toggles between what we learned during the course of our original work on Weinstein in 2017 and the substantial amount of information we’ve gathered since. Much of the new reporting we present about Weinstein helps illustrate how the legal system and corporate culture has served to silence victims and still inhibits change. Businesses are co-opted into protecting predators. Some advocates for women profit from a settlement system that covers up misdeeds. Many people who glimpse the problem—like Bob Weinstein, Harvey’s brother and business partner, who granted extensive interviews for this book—do little to try to stop it.” 

Kantor and Twohey explain the book’s organization and purpose. They continued to investigate Weinstein after their initial articles were published in The New York Times in 2017, resulting in the book’s publication. They also reveal that their work is not simply about an individual or set of accusations against him; the Weinstein story serves as a case study of a flawed US legal system that fails to get justice for victims and of a culture that enables sexual predators to engage in abuse for years.

“The O’Reilly story offered a playbook. Almost no one ever came forward completely on their own. But if patterns of bad behavior could be revealed, there might be a way to tell more of these stories.” 

When Kantor and Twohey began their work, some of their colleagues at The New York Times had recently published an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly, a Fox News pundit, subsequently lost his job. The O’Reilly investigation thus provided guidance for the authors. If they could uncover a pattern to Weinstein’s behavior, their work would have a larger impact. Indeed, they did discover that Weinstein’s harassment and assaults had a distinct pattern, as women shared eerily similar stories of being abused in hotel rooms under the pretense of professional meetings.

“But Corbett also gave Jodi a second assignment: to go beyond the individual wrongdoers and pin down the elements, the system, that kept sexual harassment so pervasive and hard to address.” 

Early in their investigation, the journalists’ editor instructed them to address not only Weinstein’s actions but the larger social context that allowed him to get away with his harmful behavior for so long. Kantor and Twohey thus address both the institutional sexism at the producer’s companies and the systemic sexism that is built into the very fabric of our society.

“Some of the former employees gave lectures: Harvey Weinstein’s sex life was his private business. The ‘casting couch,’ or the practice of actresses submitting to producers and directors in exchange for roles, was as old as Hollywood itself, an unpleasant but permanent part of the business, they said.” 

As the investigation into accusations against Weinstein took off, the journalists began contacting former employees of Miramax and the Weinstein Company. Many were uncooperative. They accepted his abusive behavior and exploitation of women as “normal” and as a standard and acceptable practice in the movie industry, thus enabling the abuse for decades.

“Judd said she had been in a no-win situation: To rebuff the producer was to risk career consequences. So she had quickly come up with a joke that wouldn’t offend him while finding a way to leave safely.”

The authors highlight actor Ashley Judd’s story as an example of Weinstein’s typical behavior. He invited budding female actors to what they believed were business meetings in hotel rooms and proceeded to harass them, repeatedly requesting that they engage in sexual activity. If they refused, Weinstein, a powerful Hollywood producer, could ruin their careers. Judd managed to escape this dangerous situation by making a sexual joke to appease the producer so that she could leave the room. Her actions reflect the pervasiveness of sexism as much as Weinstein’s; rather than confronting the person who was trying to exploit her or otherwise defending herself directly, Judd had to center his feelings and appear charming and flirtatious.

“The ethos of Hollywood, she [Gwyneth Paltrow] said, was to swallow complaints and to put up with exactly that kind of behavior. She didn’t think about the encounter as part of something larger or more systemic.” 

The authors’ conversations with Gwyneth Paltrow provide further evidence of a culture of silencing women and enabling sexual predators in Hollywood. Weinstein harassed and threated Paltrow when she was an up-and-coming actor, yet she remained silent because of the movie industry’s acceptance of sexual harassment—a classic example of systemic sexism. It’s especially telling that Paltrow didn’t connect her own experience to a broader problem; the silence surrounding sexual harassment and assault works to isolate individual survivors in exactly this way, perpetuating the status quo.

“Women signed these agreements for good reason, the attorneys had emphasized. They needed the money, craved privacy, didn’t see better options, or just wanted to move on. They could avoid being branded tattletales, liars, flirts, or habitual litigators. This was a way to get paid. The alternative, taking this kind of lawsuit to court, was punishing. Federal sexual harassment laws were weak, leaving out vast categories of people—freelancers, employees at workplaces with fewer than fifteen employees.” 

Settlement agreements serve to reinforce the silencing of victims, who fear the social repercussions if they publicly accuse a powerful man of harassment or assault. By forcing victims into the public arena, where they are frequently judged and shamed for their experiences, the legal system props up sexual predators. Furthermore, there are many loopholes in the laws pertaining to sexual harassment, so many victims have no legal avenue to pursue justice.

“The rumors about the producer had involved actresses, but now she [Megan] and Jodi were glimpsing an entirely new category of possible victims: employees of Weinstein’s companies. The woman who had stood next to Megan in the kitchen—perhaps the Patient Zero of the Weinstein investigation—wasn’t famous at all. And she had been young and vulnerable when she worked at Miramax. Could the producer have abused women more systemically than she or Jodi had ever contemplated?” 

Kantor and Twohey’s work initially focused on Weinstein’s predatory behavior towards women in Hollywood, but as their investigation progressed, they discovered that he had also harassed and assaulted women employees of his two production companies. Their expanded investigation led them to discover a pervasive culture of workplace harassment that targeted women from a variety of backgrounds. What united most of these women was the fact that they were relatively early in their careers—i.e. young and lacking in connections. By victimizing such women, Weinstein tilted the already lopsided male-female power dynamics even more in his favor.

“[Laura] Madden’s story was a kind of distillation, bringing together the elements of what Jodi and Megan were starting to call The Pattern: Weinstein’s hallmark moves, so similar from account to account. Each of these stories was upsetting unto itself, but even more telling, more chilling, was their uncanny repetition. Women actors and former film company employees, women who did not know one another, who lived in different countries were telling the reporters variations on the same story, using some of the same words, describing similar scenes. Eager young women, new recruits to Miramax, hoping to connect with the producer. Hotel suites. Waiting bottles of champagne. Weinstein in a bathrobe. They had been so young, so overpowered.”

After conversing with Laura Madden, a former Miramax employee, the journalists defined a pattern to Weinstein’s predatory behavior. Madden’s story was strikingly like others they had previously heard, so it was now obvious that for years the producer had carefully planned these scenes of harassment and assault.

“And in her own mind, [Laura] Madden was formulating an even more potent argument to herself. She realized that she was free. She no longer worked in Hollywood. More importantly, she had neither received money to stay silent nor signed a nondisclosure agreement. She began to wonder if she had a responsibility to speak because others could not.” 

Laura Madden, one of Weinstein’s victims who once worked in Miramax’s London office, never received a settlement from Weinstein. The absence of such an agreement meant that Madden could share her story without facing any legal or financial repercussions. Moreover, by 2017 she was not employed in the movie industry and would not have to deal with negative career consequences if she chose to speak on the record with the Times reporters. Eventually she did so, serving as a significant and credible primary account.

“As she [Jodi] probed him [Irwin Reiter] about the past, he looked a little puzzled, or maybe even disappointed. Finally he asked: Why are you asking about ancient history when Weinstein had committed so many more recent offenses against his own employees?” 

Jodi’s interviews with executive accountant Irwin Reiter mark a significant turning point in the investigation. The reporters discovered that not only had Weinstein historically harassed and assaulted both women actors and employees, but that he had also committed more recent offenses worthy of inquiry. By providing this and other information, Reiter serves as an important example of how men can use their privilege to help dismantle oppressive power structures.

“Maerov’s main concern was liability: He was trying to make sure that if anything went wrong, the company wouldn’t suffer. That was different than trying to guarantee that women would not be harassed or hurt. Once Maerov felt assured that the organization was legally protected, and with some additional financial controls in place, he decided he had done enough.” 

In addition to exposing Weinstein’s actions, Kantor and Twohey directly address power and systemic sexism at the Weinstein Company. For example, a male member of the board of directors was concerned only with the way that Weinstein’s campaign of abuse would impact the finances of the company, exhibiting no concern for the victims of that abuse.

“There is a toxic environment for women at this company. I have wanted nothing more than to work hard and succeed here. My reward for my dedication and hard work has been to experience harassment and abuse from the head of this company. I have also been witness to and heard about other verbal and physical assaults Harvey had inflicted on other employees.” 

This quote from the memo 28-year-old Lauren O’Conner drafted served as a “smoking gun” for Kantor and Twohey’s investigation. It provided written documentation of Harvey Weinstein’s transgressions and recorded the fact that company executives and members of the board of directors were well aware of his behavior while doing little or nothing to stop it. It also serves as an example of victims’ power to instigate change.

“As a women’s rights advocate, I have been blunt with Harvey and he has listened to me. I have told him that times have changed, it is 2017, and he needs to evolve to a higher standard. I have found Harvey to be refreshingly candid and receptive to my message. He has acknowledged mistakes he has made. And as we work together on a project bringing my book to the screen, he has always been respectful toward me.”

The above quote from one of Weinstein’s attorneys, Lisa Bloom, exemplifies his team’s attempts at positive reputation management. Bloom presents herself as a feminist advocate yet defends Weinstein, thus upholding patriarchal power structures. While she acknowledges some wrongdoing, she also elevates Weinstein as a changed figure, attempting to salvage a positive public image. Notably and tellingly, she references her personal and professional relationship with him: Bloom had every reason to protect Weinstein since she hoped his company would produce a film based on a book she authored.

“Weinstein was taking a leave of absence from his company. In the parlance of journalism, public relations, and business, that meant one thing: He was conceding wrongdoing. No one took a leave of absence from his own company when he was planning on fighting with full force.” 

On the eve of publishing the first article exposing Weinstein, Kantor and Twohey received the news that the producer was taking leave from his company. The journalists no longer had to worry about Weinstein and his team of attorneys striking back and taking action to shut down their reporting. Weinstein was a man defeated, and his leave of absence was essentially an admission of guilt. Kantor and Twohey’s reporting achieved its goals, not only bringing Weinstein’s wrongdoing to light but forcing change at the company.

“The Weinstein story was a solvent for secrecy, pushing women all over the world to speak up with similar experiences.” 

Kantor and Twohey acknowledge the profound effect that Harvey Weinstein’s exposure as a sexual predator had on the #MeToo movement. Their reporting served as a balm to the wounds from which so many sought healing, and a flood of women began to share their stories on social media, with friends and family, and with mass media outlets (including The New York Times).

“As spring turned to summer, Jodi and Megan began to focus on a new question: how much was truly changing, and whether it was too much or not nearly enough.”

After the journalists published their groundbreaking articles exposing Weinstein and his enablers, the preexisting #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault gained popularity and much more attention in the mainstream national media. At the book’s climax, the authors address important questions about power and change. Had their reporting and the resultant upsurge in the movement against workplace abuse contributed to enough meaningful change? Likewise, had the movement gone too far, targeting men over crass but harmless jokes or acts, as some critics suggested?

“Secret settlements were still being paid—in fact, some lawyers said the dollar amounts were higher than ever—allowing predators to remain hidden. Race and class often had an outsized influence on how cases were handled.” 

Even in the wake of Kantor and Twohey’s reporting, sexual harassment laws, their enforcement, and the recourse available to victims often remained unchanged. The authors note the role of intersectionality in how victims are treated; women of lower status and/or women of color often have few options for reporting harassment and limited supportive resources, leaving them to suffer in silence.

“She [Christine Blasey Ford] was becoming an instant symbol for women who had been abused, a figure of great hope for justice—but she also seemed likely to become a focal point for the backlash.”

Though Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was a hesitant witness unprepared for the negative attention that her revelations brought, she was also a figurehead for the #MeToo movement, giving representation to other victims who remained silent for years or who had never spoken out. Her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee gave activists hope for true change from within the governing system, though such change did not come to fruition, and Kavanaugh was confirmed as a justice to the US Supreme Court.

“In her testimony, she [Christine Blasey Ford] seemed devoted to getting every answer right. Unlike in the Weinstein case, when the voices of victims had been mediated by journalists, the world had watched and heard unfiltered narration from the woman herself.” 

Kantor and Twohey point to specific differences between the Weinstein case and Christine Blasey Ford’s public accusations of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The public discovered Weinstein’s transgressions via Kantor and Twohey’s reporting and did not hear from or see the victims directly. By contrast, Ford’s testimony was broadcast across national television, with millions of viewers able to hear her firsthand. Her precise and measured testimony made Ford credible for many who tuned in to the hearings, even without the painstaking vetting that characterized Kantor and Twohey’s reporting.

“He [Brett Kavanaugh] was driving a larger argument, making himself a focal point for male grievance, saying he was the victim, that his entire lifetime of dedication and care, down to the hours he spent coaching his daughters in basketball, was being destroyed by women making irresponsible claims.” 

Kantor and Twohey address a common strategy adopted by those accused of sexual assault of harassment. After Christine Blasey Ford provided testimony, Justice Brett Kavanaugh testified before the same Senate Judiciary Committee. He launched an enraged and defensive tirade, claiming that he had never engaged in much of the behavior of which he was accused. This behavior included not only assaulting Ford, but also excessive binge drinking and other morally questionable acts referenced in his high school yearbook. Kavanaugh depicted himself as an upstanding pillar of his community, a caring father, and the victim of a witch hunt, just as Weinstein and his team tried to paint the producer as a changed man and the true victim of Kantor and Twohey’s investigative journalism.

“We intended the interview, which would begin that evening and stretch into the next day, to be as egalitarian as possible. What each woman had to say was equally important. But there was no avoiding disparities among the participants. At McDonald’s [Kim] Lawson was now making $10 an hour. Six months before, she had been homeless.”

As Kantor and Twohey recount the story of the gathering at Gwyneth Paltrow’s lavish Hollywood home, they address intersectionality. This feminist concept holds that when confronting forms of oppression, we must consider how those various forms intersect with one another. It is not enough to generalize about how women experience workplace discrimination; instead, we must consider a variety of factors alongside gender. In this case, the authors interrogate the intersection of gender, class, and race. All the women at this gathering were victims of workplace abuse and discrimination, but they were not all the same. Some were wealthy, privileged, and/or famous while others, like Kim Lawson, had far fewer resources for receiving help, support, and justice.