So I'm mixed on Ronan Farrow, but I think this article is a weak critique. It exposes errors or omissions in Farrow's reporting. Some major; others minor. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/17/business/media/ronan-farrow.html

The main problem, however, is it presents Farrow's flaws as part of a larger culture of bad reporting in the Trump age, named "resistance journalism" here. However, the biggest danger with Farrow isn't how he fits in with modern journalism, but how he stands out.

The article touches on Farrow's rare fame and following as a journalist, but mostly ignores how people's worship of him can cloud their ability to judge his stories, statements, and actions with a clear and open mind.

You see this on Twitter. He's nicknamed "Batman." People obsess over predicting his next story. Fantasies are conjured about him taking down a group's enemy. When users hear Farrow is looking into someone, they assume that person must be a monstrosity.

This devotion to a journalist is uncommon in the age of media distrust. It should be. The topics Farrow reports, comments, or acts on are often too complex or controversial to automatically take his side on.

This does not mean he's always or, even, often wrong. As I said earlier today, he was right on Harvey Weinstein being a sexual predator. However, it means he should be subjected to the scrutiny you apply to any journalist, but instead he gets less scrutiny.

I remember reading the first piece the Times article spotlights as an example of Farrow's less than ideal reporting. I found it confusing and its major claims vague and unsubstantiated. Yet, few seemed to state this opinion. Instead, the report was met with praise.

I don't think it had to do with Farrow going after Trump; people, for better or worse, love critiquing attacks on Trump. However, they didn't want to do so with this attack because of who had written the article, because his name is synonymous with being "the gold standard."

Another example, outside of journalism, is Ronan Farrow's stand on his adopted brother, Moses Farrow, who accused their mother, Mia Farrow, of abusing him.

Now, this story is complicated--especially because Moses often defends their father, Woody Allen, from accusations that he sexually assaulted their sister, Dylan Farrow.

From what I've read, I find all accusations in this scenario are plausible and yet they could all be wrong too. Woody and Mia could both be guilty, both be innocent, or one could be guilty and the other not of the crimes each is accused of.

Yet what I've been struck by is how Ronan defends his mother against Moses' accusation: by implying Moses was paid by his father to make a false accusation. I've never seen this defense paired with any evidence that even comes close to substantiating it.

Yet a journalist who is an advocate for survivors feels comfortable just trotting this defense out without going into any depth with it. That bothers me.

What bothers me more is how his fans never realize the hypocrisy, how they give him the benefit of the doubt and accept the defense just because it's him even though it means potentially silencing a domestic abuse victim.

Key word is "potentially," but how do you know if Moses' claims aren't true unless you actually look into them to the best of your ability?

So my argument isn't "Ronan Farrow sucks." He's done more good than I have. His struggles as a reporter might just be what all reporters go through. And maybe he's totally right about what's going on with Moses Farrow's accusation. My argument is "stop worshiping him."

Just going to leave this here.