Is Ronan Farrow Too Good To Be True?

From the article: "But Mr. Farrow brings that same inclination to the other big theme that shapes his work: conspiracy...But in the absence of persuasive sourcing, Farrow’s exploration of the alternatives is insufficient....

"Even Mr. Auletta, a supporter and mentor to Mr. Farrow, told me that Mr. Farrow’s central conspiracy allegation was unproven."

"Two other NBC journalists, neither of whom would speak for the record, expressed a different view, which is shared by network executives: That Mr. Farrow was a talented young reporter with big ambitions but little experience, who didn’t realize how high the standards of proof were, particularly at slow-moving, super-cautious news networks...

"The right move would have been to 'take a 29-year-old and you hold him by the hand and you walk him through the story,' Mr. Arkin said in a telephone interview. 'Instead what they did was they took him out to the deep end and threw him in — and then they said ‘Oh my God, you can’t swim.’”

And this:

"Mr. Farrow has a big following on social media, too, and some of the same tendencies that undermine his reporting show up there. In January, when jurors were being selected for the Weinstein trial, they were asked what they had read about Mr. Weinstein to see if they could serve impartially. Mr. Farrow tweeted that a “source involved in Weinstein trial tells me close to 50 potential jurors have been sent home because they said they’d read Catch and Kill.

"Mr. Farrow was not in the courtroom that day, and he told me last week that his source stands by that figure. But the court reporter, Randy Berkowitz, told me that he recalled laughing with lawyers and court staff the day after about Mr. Farrow’s tweet, which he said was seen as “ridiculous.”

"And Jan Ransom, a reporter who covered the trial for the Times, was there. The actual number of potential jurors who read the book, according to Ms. Ransom’s reporting? Two."

Oof.

He has Frank’s eyes.

What weird timing for the New York Times to light into Ronan Farrow of all people.

He has blue contacts R5. I still believe he’s Frank’s kid though.

R6

Maybe he’s getting too close to unveiling some big shit on someone very powerful??

Or maybe R6 and R8, you should read he article. He indulges in sloppy, misleading reporting.

R8 Or perhaps the NYT is simply embarrassed that Farrow is doing the kind of in depth reportage that they are not...?

[quote] Two other NBC journalists, neither of whom would speak for the record, expressed a different view, which is shared by network executives: That Mr. Farrow was a talented young reporter with big ambitions but little experience, who didn’t realize how high the standards of proof were, particularly at SLOW-MOVING, SUPER-CAUTIOUS news networks...

lol I see NBC PR machine is still working relentlessly to discredit Ronan Farrow

Or R10, you could look at the facts presented in the article.

Actually watch old episodes of Peyton Place when Mia Farrow had the pixie cut. He looks just like her.

Whether he has Frank's eyes or face is moot at this point. Ronan had so much work done he doesn't even have his own original face anymore.

His writing is terrible. Formulaic in a very clunky way. Not that anyone was reading it for writing style, including me.

R15, "clunky" is exactly the word used about Farrow's writing style in the Times piece.

Wait, really, R16? I didn’t even read the article but perhaps have a calling for literary criticism. 😃

He really looks like Sinatra there.

Please Marys, try to focus.

[quote] In much of the strongest #metoo reporting, from the stories about Mr. Weinstein in The New York Times to The Washington Post’s exposé of Charlie Rose and even some of Mr. Farrow’s other articles, clunky paragraphs interrupt the narrative to explain what an accuser told friends, and often, to explore any conflicting accounts. Americans are now watching this complicated form of reporting play out in the stories about Tara Reade, who has accused Joe Biden of assaulting her.

[quote] Mr. Farrow’s first big story on Mr. Weinstein offered readers little visibility into the question of whether Ms. Evans’s story could be corroborated. He could have indicated that he had, or hadn’t, been able to corroborate what Ms. Evans said, or reported what her friends from the time had told the magazine. He wrote instead: “Evans told friends some of what had happened, but felt largely unable to talk about it.”

[quote] It appears Mr. Farrow was making a narrative virtue of a reporting liability, and the results were ultimately damaging.

The author uses "clunky" to describe the kind of reporting required when dealing with accusations of sexual assault. The author says that Farrow's reporting is not clunky in that necessary way.

I don't give a shit one way or another about Ronan Farrow, but this NYT article is hard to read.

"but this NYT article is hard to read."

I had no problem reading it, R20.

It's pretty rich of the New York Times to accuse Ronan Farrow -- or anyone else, for that matter -- of sloppy reporting.

They used a beautiful picture of him, so he should be happy about that if nothing else. Usually a hit piece is accompanied by a picture that screams "I'm pretty ugly and very guilty." (See Donald Trump stories.)

OP's photo of Ronan gave me the tingles a lil bit.

r23, you actually think it's possible to have a photo of Donald Trump from the last four years that DOESN'T scream "I'm pretty ugly and very guilty"???

If so, please show them to us.

R23 Really? I think that's a terrible picture of him. Greasy hair and overgrown scruff. Plus, his face looks puffy. Not flattering.

In the picture he looks slightly cross-eyed.

R26 really you think he looks bad now? Look up any photo of him from a decade ago.

He used to look like Mia's androgynous clone.

R22, what do you have to say about the actual points raised in the article? Because I assume you read it.

He's not Frank's son. He railroaded his own father. He's an idiot.

He need to find Jussie Smollett's sex tape, then he will have impressed me.

Uh-oh, Farrow camp will not tolerate their little angel genius being treated this way!

[quote] I had no problem reading it, [R20].

You may not have had any problems reading it, but you misunderstood what it says about his writing. The article does not say Ronan's writing is clunky-- it says that it's not and that is the problem with his reporting.

Woody was/is asexual and Ronan isn't built like him and doesn't look like him. Sinatra got a vasectomy in the 60s or 70s so women didn't initiate paternity claims on his estate, so he's not Ronan's dad (although I think Ronan had a couple cosmetic procedures to look like Frank, which is kinda sad).

I think Mia got one of those "genius" sperm donors that were so popular back then, because Ronan has a high IQ.

He has his father's eyes.

[quote]The article does not say Ronan's writing is clunky-- it says that it's not and that is the problem with his reporting.

You think we actually read this article gurl? we are just here to talk shit like we always do!

He seems creepy to me, obsessed with ferreting out all the bad mens like Woody to make the world safe for his Madonna-esque mother, Mia.

Of course the Mia he knows is practically a fictional construct compared to the very flawed woman she actually is, but why ruin a good gimmick, right?

Ronan doesn't look like Frank Sinatra, he looks like Mia's father.

But Guy's eyes are normal!!!!

[quote] Woody was/is asexual

Whatever gave you that idea? Haven't sex and relationships been a major part in practically everything he's done? Just because someone is unappealing and you hate the idea of them having sex doesn't mean they are not into it.

His evasiveness regarding the questions raised in the article isn't a good look

Come on, look at him, only a dna test can convince me he is not Frank's son. About the article Tldr.

Who cares if he's Sinatra's kid? Mia hinted he might be and Woody believes she was boinking Sinatra during their relationship so it's possible, even if Sinatra's daughter claims it's not.

It appears Ronan definitely wants people to believe Frank was his father.

Frank Sinatra's boy is cuttin' corners!

No, R33, that's not what it says. I quote:

"In much of the strongest #metoo reporting, from the stories about Mr. Weinstein in The New York Times to The Washington Post’s exposé of Charlie Rose and even some of Mr. Farrow’s other articles, clunky paragraphs interrupt the narrative to explain what an accuser told friends, and often, to explore any conflicting accounts."

It's not criticising anyone's writing style. It's simply pointing out that most articles in these cases have to include those paragraphs detailing what the accuser told other people. The criticism is that in Farrow's piece on Weinstein this was often left out and gave Weinstein a brief legal win regarding the Evans incident.

So the problem lies with the writers or the editors, R46, but clunky is clunky. Joan Didion's journalism was never clunky. Of course, Farrow is no Joan Didion.

I'm hoping somebody brings this stuck up grandstander down...and MIA IS STILL BITCH. Between Mia and his unbroken umbilical cord and 'Dylan's Truth', the who family give me the creeps :(

No, the problem lies with necessity. It's important to include those paragraphs so people know what the accuser was telling those around them, to give the reader further detail, even if they do interrupt the flow of the story. I don't understand why this is even being argued.

Tara Reade wrote to Ronan 4 times but he ignored her story!

He deserves a place in hell for stopping Woody's book - he suppressed it just as the networks suppressed his Weinstein story. Ronan is vile.

The best journalists and editors know how NOT to be clunky in conveying information. There's no excuse for it.

There are other issues the piece raises on Farrow beyond what is described as clunky.

R51 Given the fact you couldn't even correctly read a simple sentence, I'm not sure you should be acting like you know what good writers do and don't do.

It seems so odd that given the article gives plenty of genuine reasons to question Farrow's professionalism, you're trying to make one up. It just makes you seem like a troll.

R53, I quoted the aforementioned lines verbatim for reasons of being exact. How does that make me a troll? Do trolls quote verbatim from The NY Times? And as I just said, there are other issues. So do fuck off.

R54 Actually yes, trolls routinely posts quotes and then deliberately misinterpret them to try and pretend the source material backs up their claims, when it doesn't. The simple fact of the matter is that the article does not criticise Farrow's writing style as you claimed it did. R20 and R33 are correct.

Actually, no, trolls don't quote verbatim The NY Times, and "clunky" was the word used. It was a criticism of the pieces, and it is the fault of either the writers or the editors. Period.

R56 Stomping your feet doesn't make it so. It just makes you look ridiculous. Especially when the lack of the clunky paragraphs was the actual criticism being made.

"Especially when the lack of the clunky paragraphs was the actual criticism being made."

Who's the troll who's twisting things around? Maybe you? I quote again: "In much of the strongest #metoo reporting, from the stories about Mr. Weinstein in The New York Times to The Washington Post’s exposé of Charlie Rose and even some of Mr. Farrow’s other articles, clunky paragraphs interrupt the narrative to explain what an accuser told friends, and often, to explore any conflicting accounts."

So how do you interpret that as "a lack of clunky paragraphs" when it says "even some of Mr. Farrow’s other articles, clunky paragraphs interrupt the narrative." Not a lack of clunky paragraphs, but clunky paragraphs.

R58 Did you read the article beyond that one passage? Maybe try reading the next paragraph:

[quote]Mr. Farrow’s first big story on Mr. Weinstein offered readers little visibility into the question of whether Ms. Evans’s story could be corroborated. He could have indicated that he had, or hadn’t, been able to corroborate what Ms. Evans said, or reported what her friends from the time had told the magazine. He wrote instead: “Evans told friends some of what had happened, but felt largely unable to talk about it.”

So instead of those clunky paragraphs - which would've had to include the fact that a friend with Evans at the time did not back up her story to a New Yorker fact checker - Farrow just skips it with that single sentence. That is the criticism being made - that because the story from a witness to the accusation did not back up his story, Farrow skipped it.

Why do you think it points out those same clunky paragraphs can be found in his other articles? It's pointing out how he knew that was the journalistic necessity, but in this case he skipped it, presumably because it didn't match the story he wanted to tell.

I simply can't understand how you missed such a prominent aspect of the article. Which again raises the question of whether you're trolling, or you're simply ignorant.

Oh dear, who to side with? Ronan the sanctimonious phony who only seizes on sex abuse allegations that are convenient or the elitist hacks of the New York Times, who have spent decades enabling rich republican scumbags? I'll have to sit this one out.

First of all, R59, there were a few aspects to Farrow's reporting that are under scrutiny, and clunky paragraphs (which are, ultimately the responsibility of the editor to smooth) are just one of the issues. Leaving out information to suit his narrative is significant, but that's not the most smoking gun in the article.

You keep bringing up trolling. Often that means the person making that accusation has an agenda of their own. It seems that's the case with you, to get so hot under the collar and accuse someone else of both trolling and ignorance. That's a lot of emotion invested.

*but that's not the smoking gun in the article.

I think Ronan is still covering up child collector Mia's dirt.

R61 Again, your inability to read properly has made you look foolish. I said it was a prominent aspect, not the only one, nor a "smoking gun".

Likewise, I did not accuse you of "both trolling and ignorance". I said the question was raised of whether you were one or the other. You do understand that 'or' does not mean the same as 'and', yes? Your most recent post rather has me leaning towards the latter.

Also, your definition of trolling is wrong.

I didn't define the word troll, but I can spot them on DL. Nor did I say you called anything a smoking gun.

My my, you're so defensive. It's so obvious when you're on the attack and disparage someone that you have an agenda.

[quote]It's so obvious when you're on the attack and disparage someone that you have an agenda

You genuinely don't see the irony of you saying this, do you?

The article refers to a clunky paragraph in Ronan’s reporting - but the validity of the remark is that the paragraph attempts to mask a lack of veracity in his reporting.

It’s about time somebody did a hatchet 🪓 job on this sacred calf. And of course it immediately makes on realise that all of Dylan’s bullshit is a nonsense too. Glad I’ve stayed Team Woody all these years because the Farrow clan have always bent the truth to suit Mamma Mia’s objectives.

No, it's the lack of such a paragraph which attempts to mask a lack of veracity in his reporting.

That must mean he is coming after someone the Times supports and they want to silence him.

Farrow’s narrative re: allegedly being railroaded by NBC has never passed the smell test. They refused to run his piece because he had no alleged victims who would do on-air interviews, in no small part because Rose McGowan backed out of her commitment in an unsuccessful attempt to shake down Weinstein for something like $6 million. Farrow’s a fraud who wouldn’t have a career but for his famous parents and his mom’s connections among New York’s liberal set.

Good writing isn’t about big words and sophisticated phrasing. If I have to read a sentence more than once, it’s bad writing. That goes for the two of you upthread, who argued about “clunky”. Agree with r61, though.

R67 is pretty typical of the rightwing and alt-right pro-Woody brigade: uses lots of cliches ("sacred calf') and stupid catchphrases ("Mamma Mia"), can't express a point without using emoji, and makes ridiculous leaps of logic.

The rightwingers hate any celebrity who is obviously liberal, which is why they've taken an anti-Ronan Farrow stance. They also have quite a bit to say about how he's really part of the Deep State, etc. etc.

[quote]He deserves a place in hell for stopping Woody's book

His book has been out for weeks, dumbass. Go buy it.

R38 OK he definitely looks like that elder Farrow...which means Mia was banging a dude who look liked her own father.

It would make sense that there’s resemblance to Mia and John. That resemblance comes from the maternal-side DNA, which is not in dispute.

The Allen Konigsberg DNA is in dispute. How can Ronan look more like Frank than Woody? Although, to be fair, some kids don’t have any resemblance to their mother, so.

Look. This had to happen.I'm surprised so much of what Farrow discovered ever saw the light of day. He has rattled the cages of some very powerful interests, so hit pieces attempting to harm or destroy his credibility were inevitable. I support hi. I'm old.OK? I remember the Nixon Era. There were very few reporters who'd challenge the establishment, exposing dirt. Seymour Hersh was one of them. He was the Gold Standard. And they tried everything they could to sear him. I'm going to stick with Ronan and fuck the NYT. They have a lot of explaining to do for their news coverage of Trump and the hit job they did on Hillary. Fuck them with molten steel.

R66, let me correct your sentence, know-it-all: "You genuinely don't see the irony of your saying this, do you?" There.

Now: what's my agenda, then? Let's hear it.

No, R69, did you read the article?

I think he looks creepy like a slightly more appealing version of that Chucky doll.

[quote]the who family give me the creeps

I totally agree.

Ronan the Clunky Barbarian.

I'm bothered by the poster who doesn't understand that "clunky" refers to the manner in which (what the writer considers) the necessary corroborative facts are included in reporting. I don't understand why he is so committed to defending a misinterpretation.

THIS is why you never exaggerate your claims. If anyone busts you for it, you lose all credibility.

R82=Concerned "Clunky Reference" Troll.

Twitter is penning the article. And at least one of the arguments it contains, that NBC was willing to run Ronan's story on Weinstein, is false.

* panning

Twitter is panning it? That's about as relevant as Datalounge panning it.

I always think the Frank Sinatra thing is stupid and a non-starter, not only because Ronan' looks are like his grandfather John Farrow (and not Sinatra), but because he was a child genius who started college at an extremely young age and then started Yale Law School before he was 20. That intelligence did not come from Mia, and it sure as hell would not have come from Sinatra. It had to have come from Woody.

R88, Woody was a terrible student, by his own account. He flunked out of NYU and City College. Not that he’s not intelligent, but his educational profile is lackluster.

But Ronan’s intellect is a good argument for Woody being the bio father.

[quote]And of course it immediately makes on realise that all of Dylan’s bullshit is a nonsense too. Glad I’ve stayed Team Woody all these years because the Farrow clan have always bent the truth to suit Mamma Mia’s objectives.

Same here. I imagine Mia is still sitting around every day of her life fuming about Woody and Soon Yi, mulling over her still-fiery resentments, while they never think of her at all.

To build on what R88 said, Ronan got his IQ from Woody and most of his looks from Mia. Look at pictures of Ronan as a teenager, pre-plastic surgery, and you can see that he once had Woody's nose.

Since Frank Sinatra looked a lot like John Farrow, that's where the resemblance comes in. The rest of Ronan's resemblance to Frank is surgery and colored contacts.

[quote] Since Frank Sinatra looked a lot like John Farrow, that's where the resemblance comes in.

And that was no accident. Mia always has had a father fixation.

Whatever the flaws in Farrow's reporting or research, this recent piece in the NYT is nothing more than petty disparagement and smear-journalism. Absolutely laughable when one considers the state of the NYT's own existence in the last 10 years or so. Yet another desperate rattled gasp from an archaic media institution that has lost almost all credibility during the current administration. The ongoing struggle by the NYT to remain relevant is now mainly focused on practicing sycophantic "access journalism" and this has taken a sad yet predictable toll on the institution's reporting quality and trustworthiness.

Mia had four biological sons. The first two, twins, look nothing like her and very much like their father, Andre Previn. The third one, Fletcher Previn, looked a bit like Mia when he was a kid, but now he'd strange-looking with a block head. Ronan looks like her clone.

[quote]Twitter is panning it? That's about as relevant as Datalounge panning it.

No, actually, it isn't. Twitter makes the news, Datalounge doesn't. Celebrities sometimes respond to Twitter backlashes but not to Datalounge ones. Twitter can cancel people, Datalounge doesn't.

[quote]That must mean he is coming after someone the Times supports and they want to silence him.

Well, I'd kinda like to know who killed Epstein, wouldn't you?

R96, so I can shake their hand? yes.

This is bizarre piece. It doesn't level any serious accusations against Ronan, just nitpicks some things and makes weird innuendo.

It reads more like a petty hit piece than any real reporting. I was expecting more meat in the article.

TARA READE'S 15 minutes of fame just started!!!!!!!! Poor brave Rose McG has already shot herself in the foot shoved down her throat.

Sure, Jan, R93--by the way have you read the article?

R95, it's a bunch of people with a page to spout their opinions. In terms of the quality of discourse, it's no better than Datalounge. And yes, if cancel culture is (regrettably) your thing, enjoy Twitter.

r100 The quality of the speech is irrelevant to my argument. In the case of all controversies, what matters most is the balance of forces of the voices involved, not the quality of their arguments. For some reason that is difficult to explain, much of the controversies that fall on political and media figures begins and ends on Twitter. If Twitter is circling the wagons around Ronan, that's a good sign for him.

[quote] [R67] is pretty typical of the rightwing and alt-right pro-Woody brigade: uses lots of cliches ("sacred calf') and stupid catchphrases ("Mamma Mia"), can't express a point without using emoji, and makes ridiculous leaps of logic.

Ha ha, lol. People not buying Mia Farrow's narcissistic bullshit are now alt-right rightwingers? What a load of crap.

"The quality of the speech is irrelevant to my argument."

"In the case of all controversies, what matters most is the balance of forces of the voices involved, not the quality of their arguments."

R101, you have very low standards. The quality of speech is very relevant in an intelligent society; as for Twitter, what you describe is a free-for-all, and to say the "quality" of arguments doesn't matter is pretty pathetic.

The motivation behind the article is a little suspicious. It seems a little to late to try to debunk anything and more like a personal attack (even if an attack has to be way more contundent to do any harm)

Farrow is as much subject to scrutiny as any other journalist. There is nothing in the article that personally attacks him. In fact, the writer of the piece praises him a few times. But this isn't enough for Ronanstans, who can't handle even this mild critical piece. Get over yourselves.

R100 - As amusing as the "sure Jan" reference has been , and remains at times, the effective use of it depends on the context in which it is wielded as a retort. Perhaps a little effort to be more current would add at least a tiny bit of sting to your lackluster attempts at a witty comeback. I did read the article. I've read many many NYT articles and op ed pieces. I stand by my criticism and dismissal of NYT as a valid resource for anything these days.

"The effective use of it depends on the context in which it is wielded as a retort."

Well, SMELL YOU, MARY R106.

"I've read many many NYT articles and op ed pieces."

Congrats, Mary--you can read. So you've read "many many" NYT articles and op-ed pieces. You do all that reading of the NYT only to "stand by my criticism and dismissal of NYT as a valid resource for anything these days."

So why are you reading a paper you "don't hold as a valid resource for anything"?

That would be if I watched Fox all day and then said "I don't hold as a valid resource for anything."

R106, you are completely full of shit, completely disingenuous, and your pussy smells, too!

R77 It's perfectly obvious you have some issue with Farrow, that's your agenda. What's hilarious about it is you missed the genuine criticism over his journalistic integrity in favour of your made up idea that his writing style was being criticised.

What's hilarious, R108, as well as perfectly obvious, is that you're possibly the biggest Ronanstan on this thread. That's your agenda. And you are a complete troll. In fact, I'm going to block you now and do a little Trolldar just to see how much of a troll you are.

R109 Go right ahead, you'll see my first post in this thread - R41 - was criticising Farrow. All the others since have been correcting your misinformation.

I prefer my bottoms to be less delicate looking.

Real journalists face criticism all the time, in a free society.

If Ronan can back it all up, he will. If not, he’s a piker.

Stop bickering about the criticism and thinking he’s immune. If a journalist wrote about Barack Obama’s impropriety, we’d be skeptical and demanding proof.

Yep, much as I suspected, a troll by another name (or number) is R108. He's not only a Ronanstan, he's also a Timmee Troll.

Enough said.

R113 People can just check my post history themselves and they'll see you're a liar. The lengths you're going to just to defend your incorrect interpretation of part of this article is just making you look foolish.

The beauty of blocking a troll? You know you've trapped them, like a rat, in that soundproof room, and you don't have to see them or smell them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the article is timed for Tara Reade's legitimacy and Ronan's glaring avoidance of Tara...

What legitimacy R116. She’s changed her story again just in the last few days. The writer of this article is getting roasted on Twitter.

How anyone can think the Tara reade story is credible at this point is acting in bad faith or too far up their own asshole to admit they were wrong.

Oh, no! Roasted on Twitter!

I think this has to do with Tara Reade. The left has to figure out a way to call this woman a liar while not undoing the last few years of pandering to women with the MeToo/BelieveAllWomen thing.

Ronan and Mia and their quest to vanquish Woody the Wicked (or at least wicked in their minds ) have grown tiresome. But I find it odd that NYT had no issue with Ronan and his professionalism or bias when he was pursuing his single minded goal to drag the entire world into the Allen vs Farrow drama. Including pushing for a book cancellation. I suspect that Farrow is about to drop something very unflattering about some editor or friend of the New York Times, maybe even a prominent NYT journalist. Just a suspicion. The media world seems to be a hotbed for MeToo.

I suspect all these whisper whisper conspiracies about what nefarious deeds are being plotted against whisper whisper Ronan Farrow who is they say working on an expose of whisper whisper...

...is bullshit.

Rona and her paramour are too busy in quarantine braiding each other's hair and painting each other's toenails.

Ronan Farrow should name himself FRANK SINATRA JR II

I’m the poster who first used the word “clunky” without having read the article. It was my personal characterization. But I am VERY AMUSED to return the next day and see so many posts debating that one aspect of the criticism.

Take it from me, if you haven’t read the book: his writing is clunky in style, apart from whatever else is wrong with it on a journalistic level. The writing itself is not compelling.

My observation is that if you inherent someone's appearance you also inherit their intelligence. My father unfortunately did not follow that rule. Someone ugly and smart usually inherits both traits from one parent ending up ugly and smart. People sometimes inherit all bad traits and it's quite depressing

Ronan reported allegations about Weinstein.

A jury in New York convicted Weinstein based on evidence. Now he has to stand trial.

To suggest that Ronan is an unreliable reporter after legal investigations and convictions related to what he reported seems shaky. It seems like the NYT is either picking nits or has an ax to grind for some reason.

R126 And yet there are elements of the Weinstein case which Farrow reported which Weinstein's legal team were able to get thrown out - like the Evans case.

And none of that backs up his claims about NBC being blackmailed.

Has Ronan replied to the savage little nip that ends the piece? Small but damning and illustrative of the article’s point about making himself the story.

I've seen Ronan in person and I believe he has some sort of disability with his legs. They are rail thin (in jeans) - in a way that's abnormal. Does anyone if he was born with a condition?

Seems this writer has his own agenda, he is heavily pushing the "believe Tara Reade" narrative, he wrote this story.

R126 Or Ronan is investigating something new and someone is trying to discredit him before it gets out.

Or not, R131? Any proof in your claim?

R129, Woody Allen (and Moses Farrow) allege that Ronan had surgery to break and elongate his legs to add some inches to his height.

And here’s a photo.

FWIW, Mia Farrow is BFFs with longtime NY Times op-ed fixture Nicholas Kristof.

The vast bulk of the substantive reporting that brought down Weinstein was done by Kantor & Twohey of the Times, not by Farrow, as a close reading of the reporting vis-a-vis the collapse of The Weinstein Co. and Harvey’s subsequent legal travails shows. Farrow isn’t a real reporter and writes poorly, but has been canny about monetizing his name and notoriety with the Twitter set. An all-American “riches to even more riches” story.

OP - Please define "Too Good", and while you're at it... also "True".

I wonder if Mia and Ronan sing duets of "You're Just Too Good to Be True " to each other.

R129, he had them lengthened. He spent years and years and years as the bones were cranked apart. I guess Mia didn’t want him to be a dwarf.

Why should he, r136? That's the headline the NY Times used--he was just passing that information along. Ask THEM to define it.

[quote] Woody Allen (and Moses Farrow) allege that Ronan had surgery to break and elongate his legs to add some inches to his height.

I'm not clear why that would be relevant to anything here. If he did it, that's creepy, but I think all major plastic surgery or major surgical body modification is creepy. But it has nothing to do with his journalism.

He is essentially an updated version of Chris Hanson with a better pedigree. The main difference is that he grew up with social media and therefore understands how it can be deployed to promote his version of a particular narrative.

But yeah, Chris Hansen. And we all know how things ended up for Chris Hansen.

He is essentially an updated version of Chris Hanson with a better pedigree. The main difference is that he grew up with social media and therefore understands how it can be deployed to promote his version of a particular narrative.

But yeah, Chris Hansen. And we all know how things ended up for Chris Hansen.

Sorry, I forgot the words “in a wheelchair”. He lies now and claims to have had a bone infection. He may have gotten a bone infection from years of the screws, but while he was still working for Clinton’s State Department there were still articles online that mentioned his leg lengthening.

It's pretty rich of the New York Times to accuse Ronan Farrow -- or anyone else, for that matter -- of sloppy reporting.

This was a really excellent article; I didn't really take away from the article that the NYT said he was a sloppy reporter (though they did provide multiple examples of sloppiness on his part), but rather that - not unlike right wing media - he advanced these conspiracy theories rather than just letting the facts speak for themselves. The primary example of that was the Hillary Clinton anecdote. As I read this, the whole Woody episode came to mind. He & his mother have a narrative about Woody & they relentlessly drive it home & anyone who says otherwise or who even attempts to contradict this world view must be attacked.

Since you always think of the Sean Hannitys/Alex Jones of the world advancing these conspiracy theories, it's an interesting perspective that liberal reports do the same thing - rather than just putting out there the more obvious conclusion - big bureaucracies are very slow and risk averse when it comes to addressing misbehavior by their high profile employees.

"I'm pretty ugly and very guilty." (See Donald Trump stories.)"

Honey, do you think Trump ever looks good in any capacity? He's ugly inside and out. And it comes across clearly in photographs.

"big bureaucracies are very slow and risk averse when it comes to addressing misbehavior by their high profile employees."

Yeah, I think this falls under the way "big bureaucracies" assess that risk and whom they force to make sacrifices to that risk.

It was an odd piece for the NYT to run now, in the midst of everything that's going on with Covid and with Tara Reade.

Even odder if that it seems like career suicide for the guy who wrote it. There's no way it's not going to sound like a jealous hissy fit about someone who is much more successful at a younger age, especially given Farrow's very high profile among people who otherwise don't care about journalism.

He has conan obrien absence of ass. Might be ped like mias brother. Gives me creeps

R146, do you think the purpose of journalism is to be liked? Btw, there's nothing in the article that suggests a hissy fit on the part of the writer.

He write bad thing about my Woodie.

R140, I was answering a question asked by r129. Supposedly Mia wanted him to be taller, because it’s advantageous for a political career. It’s relevant to me (although I did t bring it up) that a handsome and well-connected intellectual genius would go to such an extreme - and lie about it! - for such little gain, at his mother’s urging.

My opinion: Satchel/Seamus/Ronan and his mother are sock people.

Farrow's conspiracy theories against his father (his actual, biological father, Woody Allen) have sullied Farrow. At his journalistic worst, he floats conspiracy theories and he has benefited greatly from both nepotism and #metoo. Lucky for Farrow that he's been able to exploit women to benefit his career.

It’s not only his legs. He does have some kind of condition—a variation of dwarfism or *something* that affects his proportions. I never noticed his legs, but his head is unusually large and his hands are absolutely tiny. I am always distracted by his T. Rex hands when he makes TV appearances.

LEAVE SATCHEL ALONE!

R152, his head is just really large. Which is probably because of his superior brain.

Too bad Mia can’t buy him some hand-enlargement surgery.

He's always going to be the guy who wrote the hit piece on Farrow R147

Which will color both public perception of his journalism and his future employment prospects as well.

Whether you personally found it to be a hissy fit, that is the way it is being perceived.

A post-Trump era audience would have been much more receptive to a piece which focused on the silliness of conspiracy theories.

Please, Mary. This journalist's "future employment prospects" are going to be just fine. He's already writing for The New York Times, and it's not like this journalist was caught plagiarizing. THAT'S a career killer. And do you think Farrow has that much weight to throw around, and would that be what we would want, for journalists to be able to destroy other journalists. My, what a little bunch of Trumpers you all are. What absurd reactions I'm reading to this piece that legitimately questions Farrow's journalism.

[quote]not unlike right wing media - he advanced these conspiracy theories rather than just letting the facts speak for themselves. The primary example of that was the Hillary Clinton anecdote

Like how the NYT advanced conspiracies about HRC's emails?

The person you quoted was dead on: it's rich that the Times, of all people, would be going after any journalist at all for allegedly being driven by an agenda.

Oh yes, R157, the Times should NEVER do any kind of investigative journalism. After all, it's only a newspaper.

And by the way, the Times are not "people."

The person you quoted was dead on: it's rich that the Times, of all people, would be going after any journalist at all for allegedly being driven by an agenda.

Well, a broke clock is right twice a day - I'm not disputing what you're saying about the NYT, but rather I thought the author did an excellent job of illustrating his problem with Farrow's reporting & the conclusions he drew about the motivations of the people & organizations surrounding the story. Both things can be true at the same time.

There has never been any legitimate news organization that reported on Ronan Farrow having "leg lengthening surgeries" and the only places that mention it are Datalounge, LSA and random gossip trolls on a couple of websites.

To write off the NY Times because one objects to stories it's run is to act like Trump and say a news outlet should just go away or worse, attack it as illegitimate in the hopes of shutting it down simply because one doesn't like what the Times is reporting all the time.

In the AIDS era, incidentally, a lot of gay activists had legitimate gripes against both the Times and Anthony Fauci. It's not an infallible paper, nor is it the great enemy some really nearsighted people here are claiming.

What's true, that Farrow's motivations aren't perfect enough, therefore his takedowns of powerful sexual predators should be... what, ignored? Qualified with an asterisk that says "Ronan Farrow isn't perfect, either, just remember that when you're discussing what he wrote about Weinstein"?

Who is suggesting, R162, that to critique Farrow is delegitimizing his achievements? You can appreciate the work he's done (as the journalist did in the article on him) and still find fault with some of his methods.

My biggest gripe with Farrow isn't part of the article: that he used whatever cachet he had to force a publisher not to publish a book he didn't want to see out there--Woody Allen's memoir. What kind of journalist does that but a horribly biased one, at least in that particular instance?

Who is really doing bogus hit pieces on investigative journalists during these times? Oh, the Trump-backing NYT. Awful.

R164 That is a legitimate gripe. Wailing via social media, to the public, that he was betrayed—nay, violated!—by his publisher because it was going to publish his father’s writing was childish at best and unethical at worst. It is embarrassing that he did that and it’s worthy of criticism.

[quote]To write off the NY Times because one objects to stories it's run is to act like Trump

Every news outlet should be subjected to fair and regular criticism, especially when there has been a lengthy history of troubling articles that have pushed lies as truth, editorials touting eugenics as positive solutions to problems, and other similar antics.

But you're the OP who has also posted something like 50 times on this thread trying to keep the flamewar alive, so of course you're going to say "criticizing the New York Times makes you exactly like Trump."

It would be so nice if you weren't here.

R160, Woody alleges it in his book.

(Does that make it true? No.)

You know how history repeats itself? We’re going to see this same kind of shit coming from the Jolie-Pitt kids one day.

[quote] What absurd reactions I'm reading to this piece that legitimately questions Farrow's journalism.

TRANSLATION: I am SIMPLY AGHAST that my fellow DLers do not share my glee at that poseur Ronan Farrow being taken down and are either taking his side, or trying to derail the conversation to his parentage. And so I will HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS at every response that does not fully agree with me!!! HISSSSSSSSSSS!!! HISSSSSSSSS!!!!

I actually paid to download Woody's book, and then I read it. It was boring and poorly written. It was as though his attitude was "if I'm not getting paid millions for this, then I'm just going to talk into a tape recorder and then have some intern type it up and publish it unedited".

And I bet he spoke into a clunky tape recorder.

Woody writes on a typewriter.

Woody is lazy and seems to follow his hormones with little restraint but he is disciplined with diet and is scared of dying.

[quote]He's always going to be the guy who wrote the hit piece on Farrow

No, he's always going to be the guy who published the Steele dossier. The Farrow piece pales into insignificance compared to that.

"Oh, the Trump-backing NYT."

R165, I assume that's some kind of joke you're making.

Just because you call yourself a "journalist" doesn't make you one

- Matt Lauer

A surprisingly lucid and detailed critique of Farrow's methods. Of course Lauer is far from disinterested, but we as a culture would be better off spending more time considering the substance of arguments rather than simply dismissing/agreeing with them based on the identity of the arguer.

No wonder why the lefties never win the cultural war as they always nitpick and find faults among themselves. FFS. Being a straightforward nice guy won't help you beat the Repugs.

Do calm down, R170.

"Rape" cannot be "consensual." Farrow NEEDS to retract the word "rape."

The NBC executives under investigation by the NY AG’s office are clearly grasping at straws as they attempt to deflect from their misdeeds. Apparently, they have friends in the media willing to help them out by attempting to discredit Ronan Farrow. Not surprising—that’s how old boys networks operate.

Too bad. They’re all going down!

Conspiracies! Sinister plans afoot to destroy Ronan Farrow! He must be whisked to a safe space for his protection and for the future of the #metoo movement!

MATT LAUER SODOMIZED ME!!!!!!

Ronan before his Sinatra hair job and blue contact lenses

In his column, however, Smith said he reviewed an NBC script that contained “no on-the-record, on-camera interviews.”

In defending that, Farrow tweeted, “Ben notes a Weinstein script from NBC and a radio interview I gave about it. The book discusses that draft and its account is accurate. In the interview, I misspoke. What I should have said was that there were at least two women named or willing to be named, as the book lays out.”

Misspoke. That’s the key here. The word “misspoke.”

Over the past few days, there has been plenty of scrutiny of Farrow’s NPR interview and his tweet admitting that he misspoke. After all, “willing to be named” is not the same as actually being named.

Closer inspection shows Farrow “misspoke” many more times than just the NPR interview while promoting his book “Catch and Kill.” Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple found that Farrow said eerily similar things in interviews with “The View,” Fox News’ Bret Baier, Katie Couric, NPR’s “On Point,” “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Fox News’ Shannon Bream and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

NPR: “There was no draft of this story at NBC that had fewer than two named women.” “The View”: “I think the reporting is unimpeachable and stands on its own. It is actually an outright lie to say that there weren’t named women. There were three named women during the time that the story was at NBC. No draft had fewer than two women.” Fox News with Bret Baier: “We had multiple named women in every draft of this story.” Katie Couric podcast (see 5:30): “In every draft of this story while it was at NBC News, we had multiple named women.” NPR’s “On Point” (see 43:30): “We lay out very clearly what we had, there is no draft of this story at NBC that had fewer than two named women.” “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert: “We had a tape of Harvey Weinstein admitting to a sexual assault, multiple women named in every draft of the story.” Fox News with Shannon Bream: “We had multiple named women in every draft of this story; an audio recording of Harvey Weinstein from a police sting operation admitting to not just one sexual assault, but a pattern of them.” MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show”: “We had a tape of Weinstein admitting to sexual assault. We had multiple named women in every version of this story.”

Yesterday on The View, all the women defended Ronan except Whoopi Goldberg. Of course, Whoopi is infamous for her “it wasn’t rape-rape” comment, but I think Whoopi’s overall summation makes good sense: She said that all Ronan Farrow needs to do to settle Matt Lauer’s accusations is to answer them one by one with evidence. Lauer stated that Farrow and his publisher, Hachette, did not do his due diligence as a journalist by properly vetting allegations before publishing them. If he reported this information with integrity, then he did vet the information and he documented the vetted information, and all he needs to do is provide that information. Do that, and it’s settled, and Matt Lauer will be further embarrassed and further shunned. And Mediaite and its publisher Dan Abrams have their own questions to answer.

Wemple wrote, “If Farrow concedes that he ‘misspoke’ in that NPR interview, he has a misspeaking problem.”

Ronan might want to ponder ... parsing the difference between MISINFORMATION and DISINFORMATION.

I haven’t read any of it, but the impression I get is that Ronan was eager to make a name for himself by doing what new inmates are advised when entering prison. Which is: “On your first day, pick the biggest, meanest-looking sonofabitch, walk up to him and punch his face in. You might get pummeled, but nobody will mess with you after that”. I appreciate what he’s trying to do, though.

And I get the impression that Matt Lauer has nothing to lose and he’s trying to get a job.

Oh, and NPR isn’t any better than any other media network. They’re so biased it hurts.

Matt Lauer backed up everything he said. And he put the ball firmly in Farrow's court every time.

As for NPR, please provide examples with evidence of their biases, R191.

Everyone is biased. No one is an automaton. We become biased politically based on our personal values.

That doesn’t mean that no one has integrity, though. There is a difference between being personally biased (as we all are) and reporting as objectively as possible (which many journalists do), fact checking and correcting wrong information and adjusting for biases (which fewer-than-ever media outlets do), and corruption. Corruption at a new organization or among journalists occurs when that organization or person presents information as if it has been carefully vetted and corrected as necessary, but was intentionally created for advocacy or activism purposes without disclosing that that is the intention. Matt Lauer explicitly accused Ronan Farrow of being an activist who works falsely under the guise of a journalist who operates with integrity and no personal agenda.

To me, this whole thing is an attempt to destroy the Me Too movement. It took down Harvey Weinstein and it's putting Joe Biden in a bad position as he prepares to run in the general election. There may have been misstatements and problems with Ronan's reporting, but the fact remains that Weinstein is a convicted felon and many of the other men he exposed are confirmed sexual predators. Lauer, nor anyone in his camp, can dispute this fact, so they nitpick fine details in the hopes of turning people against Ronan and silencing anyone who would further expose other predators (Trump, Steven Spielberg, David Foster). If you don't see that, then you are blind. If you see this and don't care, then you are an enabler of rape and should be ashamed of yourself.

Where did you come from, R194, and how did you find the DataLounge? This is no place for sound reason, well-articulated judgment or human decency.

[quote]I haven’t read any of it

Stopped reading.

okay, i like Ronan Farrow, and don't particularly like Matt Lauer, but I would like to see some answers to Lauer's specific questions. I don't think it negates the whole MeToo movement, or exonerates Harvey Weinstein, or changes everything or yadda, yadda, yadda. But I would like to know that Ronan Farrow actually did his homework and didn't cut corners to get to a juicier outcome.

Rape is a very serious charge, and I am not convinced that Matt Lauer actually raped everyone. He was fucking his colleagues and subordinates, and shouldn't have, but it sounds like some of them were fucking too many colleagues also. Here's an idea NBC: everyone try fucking somebody you don't actually work with.

R194, fair enough. I don’t care for either man, but the one with evidence wins.

Re: NPR. I just deleted two paragraphs. In a nutshell, NPR is too woke/SJW for me. Every story is about race or trans or immigrants.

R194 is deliberately closing his eyes and turning off his brain. The NYT is attempting to destroy the #metoo movement? As if Ronan Farrow was the living symbol of that movement? He didn't take down Weinstein singlehandedly (though he certainly assumes, and everyone gives him, credit for that).

As for Biden, who's desperately needed right now in the cultural and political war against Dump, why should we be looking to see him taken down? For what purpose? And for whom--the already discredited Tara Reade?

"There may have been misstatements and problems with Ronan's reporting...Lauer, nor anyone in his camp, can dispute this fact, so they nitpick fine details in the hopes of turning people against Ronan and silencing anyone..."

How is Lauer "silencing" Farrow? He's disputing many, many, many aspects of Farrow's reporting, and it isn't just misstatements, which R194 is very cavalier about (would R194 be fine with misstatements about himself going out publicly?).

Finally, R194's casual accusation of Steven Spielberg and David Foster as sexual predators, as if this were a fact rather than some DL rumor, really discredits him. And then of course, R194 ends his sanctimonious rant by saying if one doesn't agree with him, one is an "enabler" of Weinstein, etc.

Sorry to say, but you're basically saying it yourself, R194: you're an incurious, thick-skulled idiot.

The NYT and Farrow have competed pretty transparently over who gets more credit for taking down Weinstein. Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey from the Times reported on the story and wrote the book “She Said,” and Ronan reported on the story and wrote the book “Catch and Kill.” At one point, The Daily podcast from the NYT and Ronan’s podcast felt to me like they were competing for credit without explicitly gunning for one another, and it honestly made me a little bit uncomfortable.

Kantor and Twohey kind of undermined one of the witnesses who Farrow focused on, saying just that her case was dropped by law enforcement and implying that her allegations had been dismissed because they were not credible. Farrow’s podcast within days was an interview with that witness who told a long story about how she had been pursued by NYC law enforcement to file charges, she did so reluctantly, the prosecution put her through an agonizing mill of cross-examination to prepare her for the case—and then the case was dropped, devastating her, because, the prosecution said, they needed a surer thing because they’d probably only get one real shot at Weinstein.

I listened to their reporting and to that of The Guardian, which was less firsthand, and I definitely got the vibe that Farrow and the NYT were each staking their claim to the turf of Weinstein’s downfall. It really made me feel a little bit like both are opportunistic and like neither has entirely beneficent motives.

R200, the only thing I would say in regard to our post, is that the NYT isn't supposed have beneficent motives, it's supposed to report, period. If it's aggressive in getting scoops and being first in getting stories, again, that's kind of its job.

*in regard to your post

R201 That’s fair and that occurred to me when I was writing what I wrote; however, I am a little bit conflicted about it because in this case, Megan Twohey has presented herself very much the way Ronan Farrow has, as a champion and an advocate for women and a driver of #MeToo. Her reporting has been harrowing and she has at the very least performed sympathy toward victims. She did that very uncomfortable and confrontational interview with Weinstein’s woman lawyer, and the end of the interview made it clear that Twohey is in fact an advocate and an activist. It was uncomfortable for me to listen to because I am openly an advocate for the #MeToo movement, but Weinstein’s vile lawyer did call Twohey out on being a reporter with an agenda and Twohey unconvincingly defended herself while also somewhat twisting around the lawyer’s words to incriminate her—which was unnecessary and gratuitous, since she had already incriminated herself in my view.

So the issue with your comment is that, yes, technically, you are correct and I have to agree with you. But that said, the NYT authors of “She Said” *do* present themselves as having beneficent motives, and so they cannot have it both ways: either you’re a disinterested, clear-eyed reporter of just the facts, or else you’re an investigative journalist who has become so convinced by what you are reporting that you become an advocate for the subjects about whom you are reporting. And that’s where Twohey and Kantor landed.

He oozes sleaziness.

[quote]To me, this whole thing is an attempt to destroy the Me Too movement.

Me Too ended the second Brett Cavanaugh was seated on the Supreme Court. As a speak truth to power movement, it ended right then and there.

As for Lauer, I feel badly for him, but we all knew this was an over-correction to begin with and as a society, we decided we were prepared to accept that. An over-correction was necessary to land in the right place as a culture. Lauer was probably collateral damage. It had to be someone.

Except there were several "someones": Lauer, Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, etc.

[quote]an advocate for women and a driver

Uber or Lyft?

I'd wait to see what else LAUER has to say...

FROM POYNTER INSTITUTE : I would be willing to interview Lauer, but would not give him free rein to write whatever he wanted without challenge. Abrams saw the Lauer piece as an op-ed, and pointed out that Mediaite did independently fact-check the accounts of four witnesses/subjects that Lauer spoke with for his column.

Abrams revealed a couple of interesting things on the air that I didn’t know. One, he said Lauer offered to write his piece for at least one other outlet — Abrams didn’t reveal which one — but was turned down. Abrams also said Mediaite had requested an interview with Lauer in the past, but Lauer refused.

Lauer has not given an extensive on-the-record interview since being fired by NBC in November 2017. The refusal to be interviewed brings Lauer’s credibility into question, another reason I would hesitate to give him free rein to write whatever he wanted.

When considering the veracity of a claim, we would all be better off temporarily ignoring the identity and assumed biases/motives of the claimant, and focus instead on the claim. Either an argument has evidence to support it or it doesn’t. Regardless of the assumed purity of his motives, Farrow is a bad journalist. This has been glossed over and ignored by his mentors/sponsors at the New Yorker, because of who his mommy is, and because his strident tone, sloppy assertions, and his conspiracy mongering all favored the “correct” side of the modern, cultured, liberal Manichaean worldview.

R209, I agree. You won’t find many people willing to put their fear aside to look at the actual facts. As you mention, there’s a “correct” side, and you’d better not consider anything that isn’t prescribed.

It’s groupthink.

Look at that Ben Smith's headline — it's a QUESTION "Is Ronan too good to be TRUE...?"

The answer is — YEP.

'Cuz Farrow's reporting is NOT TRUE!

This pattern of behavior on the part of Ronan Farrow is nothing if not consistent with his blackmailing pressure on Hachette not to publish his father Woody Allen's memoir.

I wonder who has smaller hands; Trump or Satchel...