Ronan Farrow in new New Yorker - Page 5

lianne · ‎03-09-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@hyacinth003 wrote:
@NicksmomESQ wrote:
The time has come for people to be called out for their bad behavior.  What was done in the past doesn’t let you off the hook today. The day of reckoning has finally come. Bring it on!! Just make sure you have the facts straight because people’s reputations & lives are at stake.
Ronan Farrow is an excellent journalist.His work is throughly researched.


@NicksmomESQ
I just don't understand expecting legal recourse for things 20 years ago. I hope these stories will lead people to complain AT THE TIME of the incident.

Hyacinth

@hyacinth003 @NicksmomESQ

It becomes a bit of a sticky wicket when you try to super-impose today's attitudes and values on events that happened decades ago. (Obviously, I'm not talking about something like murder .... it was always a crime)

There's a difference between improper, immoral and illegal. There was a time not long ago when domestic violence was ignored by both relatives and law enforcement .... rarely were charges brought unless someone was killed ... or was willing to testify in court.

Often the victim was blamed if rape occurred ... "she was asking for it". Prosecution went nowhere.

Unfortunately, those attitudes were "normal" back then.

As for interaction between men and women ..... there were no laws or guidelines so there was nothing to adhere to .... just good manners.

Just to be clear .... I'm NOT excusing anyone's bad behavior, but trying to call something illegal now that was commonplace in another time puts things in a gray area with regard to our laws.

I don't know what's accurate or exaggerated with Moonves, but I do know his reputation is quite good in the industry .... not like Weinstein, who was known to be a sleaze.

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

@hyacinth003, are anyof the women expecting legal recourse against Moonves? I haven't seen anything on that.

Just curious, did you even read the article? Being physically attacked and then blackballed for not allowing yourself to be sexually manipulated was just as wrong 15 years ago as it is today.

I cant believe how many women are excusing this behavior. Then or now doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong. I'm sure some of you believe tha Oreilly paid 32 million of his own money because he was innocent. Which didn't include the multi millions his network paid out.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@SydneyH wrote:
@kjae wrote:
DO NOT care for Mr. Farrow.
Agreed, I know I'm supposed to be super impressed by him, but I'm not.

@SydneyH @kjae

Okay, I give up ..... what's the problem with an intelligent, hard working and very accomplished journalist? Not many who receive a Pulitzer Prize do so by age 30. He's definitely not your typical millenial slacker.

Or maybe you just didn't bother to check out his accomplishments before forming an opinion? Yeah, that must be it.

I didn't say it was a 'problem' and I'm well aware of his accomplishments therefore you can continue to be offended that some of us are still not impressed. It'll be ok, thanks.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@lianne

I guess my comments were not clear ... sorry.

No, I hadn't read the article at that point; but I was actually responding to the comments made upthread by Nicksmom and Hyacinth.

I was NOT excusing that behavior, but generally stating the complications that might arise when you look at incidents that happened many years ago through a 2018 lens.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@SydneyH wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@SydneyH wrote:
@kjae wrote:
DO NOT care for Mr. Farrow.
Agreed, I know I'm supposed to be super impressed by him, but I'm not.

@SydneyH @kjae

Okay, I give up ..... what's the problem with an intelligent, hard working and very accomplished journalist? Not many who receive a Pulitzer Prize do so by age 30. He's definitely not your typical millenial slacker.

Or maybe you just didn't bother to check out his accomplishments before forming an opinion? Yeah, that must be it.
I didn't say it was a 'problem' and I'm well aware of his accomplishments therefore you can continue to be offended that some of us are still not impressed. It'll be ok, thanks.

@SydneyH

Uh, I wasn't offended ..... just wondering what you were basing your opinion on if, in fact, you did know his background. I guess you must know a lot of award winning journalists, so this is nothing new for you? lol

ms traditional · ‎03-09-2010

writing as someone who was working in book publishing and Wall Street in the 1970's/80's/'90's generally covered in this expose, i think it is important to point out that behaviors as expressed in NYorker article were not accepted in my work world. they didn't have to be outlawed or legislated on because they were already outside the realm of accepted behavior. i am talking about the work world - not what people did in their own time

there is no doubt that social standards and atittudes did start to change after the tumultuous 1960's and perhaps some felt they had fewer boundaries to observe after the period of "free love." and that included men and women. this required a new awareness and new rules in time as a corrective.

the entertainment world always seemed to operate in a different universe from what i read --throughout history. but perhaps it is now setting the boundaries it had been missing.

we shall see.

pommom · ‎03-10-2010

@Big Joanie

Glad you brought this up. Ronan is the spitting image of Frank S.

If your face brightens when you meet a friend, you have struck gold. - unknown

reiki604 · ‎03-09-2010

@SydneyH wrote:
@kjae wrote:
DO NOT care for Mr. Farrow.
Agreed, I know I'm supposed to be super impressed by him, but I'm not.

Just for curiosity's sake. Which journalists are you impressed by?

'I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man'.......Unknown

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@reiki604 wrote:
@SydneyH wrote:
@kjae wrote:
DO NOT care for Mr. Farrow.
Agreed, I know I'm supposed to be super impressed by him, but I'm not.
Just for curiosity's sake. Which journalists are you impressed by?

@reiki604 @SydneyH

I would also love to know.

Scooby Doo · ‎03-14-2010

@Love my grandkids wrote:
@Scooby DooYes I did. So what? Like the rest of you, I'm free to reply to anything posted. I was polite. What's the big deal? (shrug)

It's not a big deal......... it's the irony.

bathina · ‎03-14-2010

@ms traditional wrote:
writing as someone who was working in book publishing and Wall Street in the 1970's/80's/'90's generally covered in this expose, i think it is important to point out that behaviors as expressed in NYorker article were not accepted in my work world. they didn't have to be outlawed or legislated on because they were already outside the realm of accepted behavior. i am talking about the work world - not what people did in their own time

there is no doubt that social standards and atittudes did start to change after the tumultuous 1960's and perhaps some felt they had fewer boundaries to observe after the period of "free love." and that included men and women. this required a new awareness and new rules in time as a corrective.

the entertainment world always seemed to operate in a different universe from what i read --throughout history. but perhaps it is now setting the boundaries it had been missing.

we shall see.

Yeah. No. workplace harassment has been around for centuries. It didn't just materialize after the period of "free love". You seem to imply that harassment is a result of women becoming sexually empowered and nothing could be further from the truth. My apologies if I'm not reading your post correctly.