Ronan Farrow’s Catch and Kill reads like a spy novel. The full title is Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators. And Farrow lays out quite a conspiracy. He takes the reader inside the world of investigative reporting – in his case for NBC News. Not only does NBC prove to ultimately be hostile towards allowing Farrow to tell the full story of his investigation into allegation of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein, but it is also a hotbed of abuse culture, including its main asset at the time, Matt Lauer.
“Catch and Kill” is a term used to describe a media outlet purchasing a controversial story and then burying it. It is standard practice with tabloids, as Farrow recounts how it had been used frequently by the National Enquirer over the years to protect well-known, powerful figures like Weinstein, Donald Trump, and others from salacious stories about them.
Ronan Farrow, author of Catch and Kill
The bulk of Catch and Kill is about Farrow’s unrelenting quest to give voice to the victims of Hollywood mogul and alleged serial sexual predator Harvey Weinstein. This is the real core of the book and it is fascinating. Farrow writes very engagingly, and the reader feels his urgency as he not only faces opposition from the higher-ups at NBC to tell the stories of Rose MacGowan and other women who have come forward to relate their experiences with Weinstein, but how he was also under surveillance from Weinstein’s minions, including an Israeli intelligence service dubbed Black Cube. Creepy stuff. Interestingly, it is print journalism that comes to the rescue, as Farrow, fed up and shut out from NBC, takes his findings to the New Yorker, where his story is ultimately published, helping to give a bigger voice to the #MeToo movement.
The weakest part of the book is actually the Matt Lauer section. Although it must have seemed like a good idea to include it, with Lauer’s link to NBC and the underlining of seemingly sanctioned toxic behavior by powerful men in the entertainment industry, I think it would have worked better as a New Yorker article or another book. The Weinstein story is huge and the Lauer chapter seems like a digression from the main plot. But that quibble aside, I can still highly recommend Catch and Kill.
Farrow is clearly dedicated to championing the vulnerable and bringing their stories to light. It is shocking and discouraging to read how deep the conspiracy was to silence all of Weinstein’s accusers, particularly Rose MacGowan. Hopefully Farrow’s book can help to not only corroborate her story but ultimately bring her some sense of peace and justice. Farrow (sometimes working with Jane Mayer) has reported on predatory behavior by Les Moonves at CBS, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He also exposed the link between the MIT Media Lab and Jeffrey Epstein. And this top researcher never stops researching. Farrow has a Catch and Kill podcast with expanded reporting on the topics covered in the book. I can’t wait to read about where he sets his sights next.
I was riveted to the supreme court hearings for Judge Kavanaugh last week. Like so many people, all of this talk of assault and how people react to a victim and survivor sharing their story has brought back painful memories of my own. I moved to New York City in the early 80s — a pretty innocent South Jersey girl. I had some street smarts — my dad was born and raised in N.Y., my mom lived there after college, I had an aunt and uncle on L.I., who all gave me pointers on how to get around safely. But inevitably I was on my own, and a woman alone can at times, unfortunately, be a target. Most of these unpleasant occurrences were anonymous in nature — being felt up on the subway where everyone saw, but no one helped. On more than one occasion. Verbal, sexual abuse on the street (far more extreme than the usual "Hey, baby." You get the picture.
But what resonated so strongly for me last week during Christine Blasey-Ford's testimony was an incident that happened to me just a few years ago, after I had moved to Florida. I was caring for my mom, who had dementia, and everyone told me I should be sure to care for myself, too, so I didn't get too run down. Acupuncture always works for me, so I set about looking for an acupuncturist. I started going on a regular basis, and after about a year he even started to teach me tai chi, for free, before my regular appointment. But during one afternoon appointment, for whatever reason only he could say, he thought I needed some "extra" treatment, and proceeded to massage me, below my waist, in my most intimate area. I was stunned — for only a few moments, but what seemed like forever, and then pushed his hand away, got up, and got out of there. He called me more than once the next week, after I blew off my usual appointment, and left a message on my voicemail. The first time he said that he didn't mean to do any wrong, but he implied that I had misinterpreted everything, and that he thought I should come back for my tai chi lesson. The second time he called, about a week after that, to apologize, without completely admitting anything, and hoped I would at least try to continue my tai chi lessons somewhere else. I never returned his calls and I haven't really done tai chi since.
I told just two people — my cousin and my chiropractor. I didn't want to put my chiropractor into an uncomfortable position where he would be forced to report another doctor. I just didn't want him to recommend anyone else to this guy. I told myself it was a fluke on his part and I just filed it to a back corner of my mind. I wanted to forget it.
And then this week I heard all of the talking heads asking, "Why didn't Blasey-Ford report it sooner?" They just don't understand, or care to. Trauma is not so easily dealt with. I completely understand why she didn't bring it up publicly before, but only told her therapist and a few people close to her. But when she heard that this person who had so negatively impacted her life was up for one of the most important jobs in the land, she could no longer keep silent.
I feel exactly the same way. I still have no desire to name or accuse this person publicly. But if I heard tomorrow that he was up for the position of Surgeon General, or some other such influential position, I think that such a lapse of judgement and behavior, as well as the destruction of trust between a doctor and his patient would be of extreme interest to his nominators.
I believe Christine Blasey-Ford. I believe women and men who find the courage to share their stories. It isn't easy or pleasant. I told my daughter for the first time this weekend why I never went back to that doctor. Why before I never could completely answer her question as to why I switched acupuncturists so suddenly. Why I have to say #MeToo.
March is National Women's History Month, with the theme for 2011, "Our History is Our Strength."It is good to remind people of the strength and achievements of women in history, but two stories circulating on the internet lately that have become inextricably linked in my mind also point out that we may have come a long way, baby, but we still have so far to go in how women are perceived and treated. Loretta Lynn's lyrics in her album and song "We've Come a Long Way, Baby" from 1978 may state, "Up to now I've been an object made for pleasin' you — Times have changed and I'm demanding satisfaction too," but it's clear that message hasn't been heard by all.
A viral email, supposedly written by a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity at USC expounds the notion that women are still viewed primarily as objects — maybe even less, as isolated body parts. It's a frat boy handbook, a guide for guys who want to score with chicks. The anonymous (for the moment) author constructs a detailed manifesto, designed to be distributed to his fraternity brothers, with instructions to have sex and report back to him for a "gullet report." Women are not individuals or even human beings in his view, "Note: I will refer to females as 'targets.' They aren't actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless," but solely referred to as an orifice — in his vernacular — gullets and pies. "I want raw data on who fucks and who doesn't. In conclusion the gullet report will strengthen brotherhood and help pin-point sorostitiutes more inclined to put-out."
College is still the bastion where sexual experimentation and personal growth go hand in hand with course learning. Classic frat films like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds humorously depict the desire of frat boys to successfully hook up with chicks. But those movies aren't mean-spirited or belittling. This email, for all of its "no feeling on earth can compare to a warm piece of pie" bullshit, is an extremely calculated demeaning of women. It goes so far beyond the centerfold/porn mentality — an image of a woman as an object to get off on — that it's almost hard to believe it's real. Almost. But I think it is very real.
This email is not just a cultural blip, a trifle. As noted by commenter TeacherDee on Jezebel, " ... "Do you have any idea how many of these guys become managers, directors, politicians, CEOs and on and on and on? ... These guys do not wait till they're at a party or whatever to objectify women, they are doing it all the time. ... Men like this, in leadership positions that cause them to consider women (maternity leave, reproductive rights, domestic violence etc), do not see women as equal human beings and do not make decisions that are good for women."
Considering the atrocious actions of another fraternity of sorts recently in Texas, it's abundantly clear that for many young men today, women aren't real people, but objects. A young girl, aged 11, was brutally raped by at least 18 boys and men in Cleveland, Texas this past November. As if that story isn't horrific enough on its own, there are some disturbing issues raised by how the crime has been reported in the New York Times.
At the moment the girl involved in the incident is in foster care in a different town in a different school, as both the authorities and her family fear retribution from the community and families of her attackers. Retribution for a child, a sixth grader, and her family after she had been raped, multiple times, by boys and men, schoolmates and local adults. An attack like this is a stain on any community, but is hardly new. Rape has been used throughout history, women's history, for both sexual and political humiliation. Communities, both real and virtual, need to not rally around the attackers and excuse their behavior as pack mentality by highlighting such quotes as the Times did, "How could their young men have been drawn into such an act?" Oh, the poor young men, duped and lured.
Poynter.org called out the Times for its shoddy reporting and implied viewpoint, and the Times has since issued a pale admission that maybe it didn't get the story completely right the first time. But maybe Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr.'s "angle" goes to a deeper truth that no one wants to acknowledge. As commenter Amy suggested, if the 11-year old had been a boy, both the Times and the community would have reacted and framed this story much differently. The Times hardly mentioned the victim or her attackers. Although some of the men were definitely adults, none were identified in even the vaguest way. TheHouston Chronicle wrote a much more balanced and descriptive account, "So far, 17 suspects have been charged, ranging in age from a middle-schooler to a 27-year-old. Seven are high school students, including two members of Cleveland's state-ranked basketball team. Another is the 21-year-old son of a school board member." Why so coy, New York Times?
Horrible also is that so many people, the in-denial neighbors, friends and relatives of the Texas gang-bangers, and the USC students who are sharing the "gullet report" email or dismissing it as merely a prank, are somehow promoting and abetting this treatment of women by refusing to call it out for what it is — unacceptable, shameful, horrifying. Are they that de-sensitized to this way of thinking of women? In regards to the USC email, have young women trained themselves to look the other way from an undercurrent of misogyny in order to get their rocks off? There is nothing in the USC email to indicate that the author even comprehends in the slightest way that a woman might be out cruising for sex and treating him as an object. He is either stupid or only interested in a scenario where he is the one putting a notch on his bedpost. But he isn't satisfied to be on a personal sexual journey. He has to drag all his fraternity brothers into his philosophy, to his level, "My hope is that ALL of our brothers will follow this creed with pride and distinction"
So similar in attitude to the creeps in Texas who weren't satisfied with their initial humiliation of the 11-year-old they were sexually abusing, but during an "intermission" started calling all of their friends to join in. According to the Houston Chronicle, "Not long afterward, the group fled through a back window when they heard a relative of one of the teens arriving at the blue house. The 11-year-old left behind her bra and panties as the group moved to the nearby abandoned trailer, where the assaults continued. As the men had sex with the girl, others used their cell phones to take photographs and video, police said." Not only was the young girl repeatedly physically assaulted, but the abuse continued as the event was shared and re-shared. That sort of rape is beyond misogynistic. It's strangely guy-centered sex. It's not heterosexual or even homosexual. It's just fucked up beyond belief.
Women's History Month is usually celebrated by remembering the achievements of women. But maybe we should be using Women's History Month as a signal to remember that as far as women's rights may have come, our society still has a long, long, way to go. Blaming the victim still seems to be par for the course, as the Times, a newspaper that is supposed to be held up as one of the best in the nation, had nary a description of the girl or her family or even much information about the attackers, but included observations and quotes from Cleveland, TX residents like, “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” McKinley Jr. went so far as to report, "Residents in the neighborhood ... said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground." Why was that the focus, the highlight?
