. @michaelluo has pointed out facts that contradict aspects of @benyt‘s column about my work in The New Yorker. A few additional thoughts:

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.

Those women have publicly affirmed their willingness to be named in the NBC story: https://twitter.com/ambrabattilana/status/1037100571860328449?lang=en and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/weinstein-accuser-emily-nestor-backs-ronan-farrow-row-shameful-nbc-1139383

Ben claims a central theme was whether Weinstein threatened NBC with Lauer info. Not central, and not what the book says. The book establishes a pressure campaign against NBC, including talks between Weinstein and executives as they told me and my producer to stop reporting.

As to whether Lauer information was one of the many levers used, the book accurately describes the sources at AMI and NBC who say so, and NBC’s contention that it wasn’t. The book doesn’t go beyond what the reporting revealed.

As to Clinton, here’s what the book says. This, too, accurately represents my thoughts at the time, while presenting Clinton's view as well.

I stand by my reporting.