The Weinstein Left Not Liberal Angels but Capitalists Buying Silence

Readability

The Weinstein Left Not Liberal Angels but Capitalists Buying Silence

[cap­tion id=“attachment_101636” align=“aligncenter” width=“442”] Har­vey Wein­stein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia[/caption]

At first glance it’s looks like the Har­vey Wein­stein story, from a jour­nal­is­tic stand­point seems more and more like the John Edwards Story, where lib­eral jour­nal­ists were unin­ter­ested in telling a story that might harm their allies

An explo­sive scan­dal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the cen­ter of it was an impor­tant player in national pol­i­tics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly con­trolled infor­ma­tion that jour­nal­ists weren’t able to find sources to cor­rob­o­rate the Enquirer’s report­ing. Per­haps that was part of it. But the fact was, many edi­tors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Eliz­a­beth Edwards. They saw no good in expos­ing John Edwards’ sor­did acts.

Jour­nal­ists saw no good in expos­ing the sor­did acts of a for­mer, sen­a­tor, vice pres­i­den­tial and pres­i­den­tial candidate.

And while there is cer­tainly a bit of that in the Wein­stein story the more I think about it the more it seems that this was all about cap­i­tal­ism in the Tina Brown vein.

About five years ago I did a series of piece of Tina Brown at Newsweek and Salon and her abil­ity to coax mil­lions out of lib­er­als for mag­a­zine empires that never seemed to make a buck:

Unless I’m miss­ing some­thing all that hap­pened is an attrac­tive blond man­aged to con­vince some man into spend­ing a lot of money to stake her in a busi­ness, she used said busi­ness to enhance her rep­u­ta­tion and when she proved unable to suc­ceed in it dumped it on the first sucker will­ing to take it off her hands.

It looked a lot like lib­eral were will­ing to throw away money to advance lib­er­al­ism

Alas, there’s only one Tina and prob­a­bly lots of would-​be media moguls out there with mil­lions of dol­lars to throw away on glitzy media oper­a­tions. Send me an e-​mail and we’ll do lunch.

But if you decide instead to hit Vegas and blow your mil­lions on black­jack and hook­ers, I’ll understand.

A while back a few of us thought that if lib­er­als were will­ing to play angels to advance lib­er­al­ism con­ser­v­a­tives should think about it too:

Jim­mie has cal­cu­lated — and I agree with his cal­cu­la­tions — that you could run a pretty spiffy lit­tle con­ser­v­a­tive New Media oper­a­tion for $500,000 a year if you knew what you were doing. But the prob­lem is con­nect­ing (a) peo­ple with $500,000 to (b) peo­ple who know what they’re doing in terms of online news.

If you grant that Jim­mie and I are cor­rect about this esti­mate, do the math your­self: For the $4 mil­lion that the per­matanned RINO Char­lie Crist col­lected dur­ing that sin­gle three-​month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy lit­tle New Media oper­a­tions for a year (or four such oper­a­tions for two years). And FEC con­tri­bu­tion lim­its do not apply to peo­ple mak­ing “invest­ments” in news oper­a­tions, so that the rich Repub­li­cans would not be restricted in their gen­eros­ity toward New Media, as they are toward polit­i­cal candidates.

Soros has fig­ured this out. Rich Repub­li­cans have not.

…fig­ur­ing it would be a bet­ter invest­ment than say 1530 mil on Luther Strange

But all the argu­ments that folks like us were a bet­ter invest­ment than a Tina Brown pre­sumed that the motive for such invest­ments were to advance ideas rather than sheer cap­i­tal­ism. For the estab­lish­ment a guy like Strange was an invest­ment in keep­ing the gravy train, a very cap­i­tal­is­tic motive and as Stacy McCain noted yes­ter­day the whole “lib­eral angel” thing with Wein­stein seems to be all about cap­i­tal­ism too. (empha­sis mine)

Rebecca Trais­ter of New York mag­a­zine recounts her own con­fronta­tion with Weinstein’s vio­lent abu­sive behav­ior — her called her an epi­thet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behav­ior was never pre­vi­ously reported, includ­ing the fact that “there were so many jour­nal­ists on his pay­roll, work­ing as con­sul­tants on movie projects, or screen­writ­ers, or for his mag­a­zine.” Talk mag­a­zine, with Tina Brown as edi­tor, was pub­lished 19992002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an inter­view with Hillary Clin­ton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an esti­mated $50 mil­lion. This was sim­ply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was will­ing to throw away money on a slick mag­a­zine with a big-​name edi­tor in order to buy influ­ence among jour­nal­ists. And guess what? It worked. Con­trary to their own smug opin­ions of them­selves, the jour­nal­is­tic elite aren’t the most eth­i­cal peo­ple on the planet.

That fifty mil­lion makes a whole lot more sense now. Appar­ently this wasn’t a ques­tion of spend­ing money as a “lib­eral angel” help­ing the cause of women, gays and the left, it was pay­ing the price for being a “lech­er­ous devil” buy­ing off jour­nal­ists who read­ily decided their silence was worth it for the job, the office, the pres­tige, the access , the par­ties etc etc etc all the while telling them­selves they were fight­ing to save the world from the evil con­ser­v­a­tives who were try­ing to oppress women et/​al.

This was sheer unadul­ter­ated Cap­i­tal­ism and appar­ently Mr. Wein­stein got his money’s worth for decades.

Update: acci­dently put a gallery from a pre­vi­ous post at the bot­tom and fixed two sen­tences with redun­dant words.


As I have no sex­ual secrets of rich lib­er­als to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing inter­views all the time hop­ing peo­ple like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to sup­port inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ism please hit DaTip­Jar below.




Please con­sider sub­scrib­ing, Not only does that get you my weekly pod­cast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which gra­ciously car­ries it on a weekly basis but if you sub­scribe at any level I will send you an auto­graphed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Per­fect Protes­tant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



(or you can buy one here)

Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia

At first glance it’s looks like the Harvey Weinstein story, from a journalistic standpoint  seems more and more like the John Edwards Story, where liberal journalists were uninterested in telling a story that might harm their allies

An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts.

Journalists saw no good in exposing the sordid acts of a former, senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate.

And while there is certainly a bit of that in the Weinstein story the more I think about it the more it seems that this was all about capitalism in the Tina Brown vein.

About five years ago I did a series of piece of Tina Brown at Newsweek and Salon and her ability to coax millions out of liberals for magazine empires that never seemed to make a buck:

Unless I’m missing something all that happened is an attractive blond managed to convince some man into spending a lot of money to stake her in a business, she used said business to enhance her reputation and when she proved unable to succeed in it dumped it on the first sucker willing to take it off her hands.

It looked a lot like liberal were willing to throw away money to advance liberalism 

Alas, there’s only one Tina and probably lots of would-be media moguls out there with millions of dollars to throw away on glitzy media operations. Send me an e-mail and we’ll do lunch.

But if you decide instead to hit Vegas and blow your millions on blackjack and hookers, I’ll understand.

A while back a few of us thought that if liberals were willing to play angels to advance liberalism conservatives should think about it too:

Jimmie has calculated — and I agree with his calculations — that you could run a pretty spiffy little conservative New Media operation for $500,000 a year if you knew what you were doing. But the problem is connecting (a) people with $500,000 to (b) people who know what they’re doing in terms of online news.

If you grant that Jimmie and I are correct about this estimate, do the math yourself: For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.

Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.

…figuring it would be a better investment than say 15-30 mil on  Luther Strange

But all the arguments that folks like us were a better investment than a Tina Brown presumed that the motive for such investments were to advance ideas rather than sheer capitalism.  For the establishment a guy like Strange was an investment in keeping the gravy train, a very capitalistic motive and as Stacy McCain noted yesterday the whole “liberal angel” thing with Weinstein seems to be all about capitalism too. (emphasis mine)

Rebecca Traister of New York magazine recounts her own confrontation with Weinstein’s violent abusive behavior — her called her an epithet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behavior was never previously reported, including the fact that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Talk magazine, with Tina Brown as editor, was published 1999-2002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an interview with Hillary Clinton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an estimated $50 million. This was simply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was willing to throw away money on a slick magazine with a big-name editor in order to buy influence among journalists. And guess what? It worked. Contrary to their own smug opinions of themselves, the journalistic elite aren’t the most ethical people on the planet.

That fifty million makes a whole lot more sense now.  Apparently this wasn’t a question of spending money as a “liberal angel” helping the cause of women, gays  and the left, it was paying the price for being a “lecherous devil” buying off journalists who readily decided their silence  was worth it for the job, the office, the prestige, the access , the parties etc etc etc all the while telling themselves they were fighting to save the world from the evil conservatives who were trying to oppress women et/al.

This was sheer unadulterated Capitalism and apparently Mr. Weinstein got his money’s worth for decades.

Update: accidently put a gallery from a previous post at the bottom and fixed two sentences with redundant words.


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)