We Are All Harvey Weinstein's Victims...and Enablers
Harvey Weinstein
The  Harvey Weinstein  story continues to reverberate  as new accusations  denunciations  or other consequences of  his  decades of sexual harassment seem to come to light every day.  Weinstein  has dutifully been abandoned by company  industry  friends  politicians  and family.
Of all of the articles and accounts of this scandal  the most telling so far appeared in the Weekly Standard on October 9. Lee Smith  instead of merely repeating fresh condemnations  focused on how  Weinstein  had gotten the industry to protect  him  for so long.  Weinstein 's power in both the movie and publishing industries insured that  he  could purchase an army of enablers. But simply stating that fact does not go far enough. One must imagine the relevant scenarios and take them to their logical conclusions  as does Smith:
They [the "journalists" who protected  Weinstein ] wouldn't dream of crossing a guy who could turn them into culture heroes with a phone call. Hey  I just optioned your novel and I already know who's going to make the movie. And oh yeah  please confirm that you don't  like I think I may have heard  have a reporter looking into a story about me.
Imagine the implications of that scenario.  Weinstein 's sexual assaults became so frequent that  his  publishing and moviemaking decisions were geared toward covering up those assaults. Those whose employees might be investigating  Weinstein  became prime candidates to have their articles turn into books and movies. Instant stardom and riches awaited those who would keep quiet.
Over the past thirty years  few individuals have exercised more influence over the national culture than  Harvey Weinstein .  His  movies have been well known. At one time  "Miramax bought the rights to every big story published in magazines throughout [New York] city."  His  financial contributions bought access and more to the White House.  He  made careers from Hollywood to New York to Washington. I need not list  his  beneficiaries  but they are well known (some of whom now issue obligatory press releases denouncing  Weinstein 's decades of mayhem).
Not only did this influence provide cover for  Weinstein  as  he  victimized Hollywood's women  but it created a whole new class of victims who have been ignored over the past week (and apparently the previous few decades). I refer to Hollywood's consumers.  We  complain about  our  choices in movies (and television).  We  lament that there is nothing to watch (even though  we  spend exorbitant amounts to see and subscribe to these nothings). There have always been theories as to why  our  entertainment lacks quality. Now  Harvey Weinstein  has provided  us  with the most interesting theory of all. If the Weekly Standard's scenario is correct  then  Weinstein 's choices in movies and even book options were motivated not by quality (or even his own bottom line)  but by the need to cover up rape and sexual harassment.
The nation's media now devote endless bandwidth to ever more breathless denunciations by those who were all too happy to take  Weinstein 's money as long as the accusations could be squelched. But instead of serving as a conduit for the press releases of  Weinstein 's former allies and enablers  maybe our nation's "journalists" should try a different approach. Maybe they should research actual correlations between  Weinstein 's movies and  his  cover-ups. We now have enough accusations to span several decades of movie production and distribution. How hard could it be for the New York Times or the Washington Post to figure out which Miramax movies resulted from which rape coverups? Who was  Weinstein  paying off by approving or distributing which movie?
If recent press releases are any indication  it appears that  Weinstein  was not alone. The problem appears to be widespread. Who knows how many movie deals resulted from the need to cover up some sex scandal? How many scandals are our movie dollars suppressing? Should we simply applaud Hollywood for belatedly denouncing  Weinstein  and then file back into the theaters?
The  [TGT]story continues to reverberate  as new accusations  denunciations  or other consequences of  his  decades of sexual harassment seem to come to light every day.  [TGT]has dutifully been abandoned by company  industry  friends  politicians  and family.
Of all of the articles and accounts of this scandal  the most telling so far appeared in the Weekly Standard on October 9. Lee Smith  instead of merely repeating fresh condemnations  focused on how  [TGT]had gotten the industry to protect  [TGT]  for so long.  [TGT] 's power in both the movie and publishing industries insured that  he  could purchase an army of enablers. But simply stating that fact does not go far enough. One must imagine the relevant scenarios and take them to their logical conclusions  as does Smith:
They [the "journalists" who protected  [TGT] ] wouldn't dream of crossing a guy who could turn them into culture heroes with a phone call. Hey  I just optioned your novel and I already know who's going to make the movie. And oh yeah  please confirm that you don't  like I think I may have heard  have a reporter looking into a story about me.
Imagine the implications of that scenario.  [TGT] 's sexual assaults became so frequent that  [TGT]  publishing and moviemaking decisions were geared toward covering up those assaults. Those whose employees might be investigating  [TGT]became prime candidates to have [TGT] articles turn into books and movies. Instant stardom and riches awaited those who would keep quiet.
Over the past thirty years  few individuals have exercised more influence over the national culture than [TGT] .  [TGT]  movies have been well known. At one time  "Miramax bought the rights to every big story published in magazines throughout [New York] city."  His  financial contributions bought access and more to the White House.  He  made careers from Hollywood to New York to Washington. I need not list  his  beneficiaries  but they are well known (some of whom now issue obligatory press releases denouncing  Weinstein 's decades of mayhem).
Not only did this influence provide cover for  Weinstein  as  he  victimized Hollywood's women  but it created a whole new class of victims who have been ignored over the past week (and apparently the previous few decades). I refer to Hollywood's consumers.  [TGT]  complain about  [TGT]  choices in movies (and television).  [TGT]  lament that there is nothing to watch (even though  [TGT]  spend exorbitant amounts to see and subscribe to these nothings). There have always been theories as to why  our  entertainment lacks quality. Now  [TGT]has provided  us  with the most interesting theory of all. If the Weekly Standard's scenario is correct  then  [TGT] 's choices in movies and even book options were motivated not by quality (or even his own bottom line)  but by the need to cover up rape and sexual harassment.
The nation's media now devote endless bandwidth to ever more breathless denunciations by those who were all too happy to take  Weinstein 's money as long as the accusations could be squelched. But instead of serving as a conduit for the press releases of  [TGT] 's former allies and enablers  maybe our nation's "journalists" should try a different approach. Maybe they should research actual correlations between  [TGT] 's movies and  his  cover-ups. We now have enough accusations to span several decades of movie production and distribution. How hard could it be for the New York Times or the Washington Post to figure out which Miramax movies resulted from which rape coverups? Who was  [TGT]paying off by approving or distributing which movie?
If recent press releases are any indication  it appears that  [TGT]was not alone. The problem appears to be widespread. Who knows how many movie deals resulted from the need to cover up some sex scandal? How many scandals are our movie dollars suppressing? Should we simply applaud Hollywood for belatedly denouncing  Weinstein  and then file back into the theaters?