Read on Twitter
1/ Having read “Catch and Kill,” and Matt Lauer’s Medialite piece attacking Farrow’s credibility, you’d think the allegations against Lauer were the focus of the book.
They are not.
The OVERWHELMING majority of the book focuses on Weinstein and NBCs attempts to kill the story.
They are not.
The OVERWHELMING majority of the book focuses on Weinstein and NBCs attempts to kill the story.
2/ I can’t respond Lauer’s critiques, because I don’t know the primary sources he disputes.
But for investigative books of this nature, journalists nitpicking other journalist’s work is par for the course.
Even Bob Woodward routinely updates his books after errors are found.
But for investigative books of this nature, journalists nitpicking other journalist’s work is par for the course.
Even Bob Woodward routinely updates his books after errors are found.
3/ Lauer’s piece uses the EXACT SAME tactics he says undermines Farrow’s credibility.
Example: Lauer quotes the EX BOYFRIEND of the woman he sexually assaulted and was fired over, and the boyfriend doesn’t have good things to say. Vague, unverifiable, unprovable.
Example: Lauer quotes the EX BOYFRIEND of the woman he sexually assaulted and was fired over, and the boyfriend doesn’t have good things to say. Vague, unverifiable, unprovable.
4/ So, the question comes down to who has credibility.
Ronan Farrow? Or Matt Lauer.
The subtext of Lauer’s piece is exactly the same as his Morning Show character. He doesn’t understand he did anything wrong and feels like the real victim.
I’m with Farrow all the way.
Ronan Farrow? Or Matt Lauer.
The subtext of Lauer’s piece is exactly the same as his Morning Show character. He doesn’t understand he did anything wrong and feels like the real victim.
I’m with Farrow all the way.
