Skip to main content

tv   Ronan Farrow Catch and Kill  CSPAN  December 28, 2019 5:18am-6:28am EST

5:18 am
c-span2. ♪
5:19 am
>> good evening, everyone, thank you very much for your patience. i'm bradley graham, coowner of politics and pros and on behalf at everybody, welcome. thank you so much for coming. you know, we been partnering for a number of years sponsoring the author talks and we are really, really grateful to have have access to such a spacious and convenient facility here in the center of washington, we are also grateful for the support from all of you, we know that you have choices on where to buy books these days and we'd like to thank you for choosing to shop with a local independent bookstore. [cheers and applause] it's especially exciting to be hosting this evening and he's here to talk about his new book catch and kill, it's been 2
5:20 am
years since ronan writing in the new yorker and megan writing in "the new york times", 1 years since they published their separate eposes of sexual assaults and harassment against movie producer harvey weinstein, many women to come forward with powerful and privileged protected men and helped give rise to the me too movement. [applause] >> the award honor craigous breakthrough reporting of ronan, jody and megan, in catch and kill recalls breaking the weinstein story and details the institutional resistance, attempted intimidation and the threats he faced in doing so.
5:21 am
the book which contains additional revelations is not just a work of it of investigative journalism but itself a compelling and spy story, ronan writes about not only extreme tactics by weinstein, full-on espionage operation, but also described actions by executives at nbc news. i'm not giving away any spoilers because this has been widely reported since the book's release but ronan speculates that nbc's behavior was to protect matt lauer who was accused of sexual misconduct and let go. on the interest of fairness nbc strongly denies that it sought to block ronan's investigation and tried to cover up lauer's
5:22 am
conduct and lauer claims that it was consensual. ronan, of course, is accustomed to public attention, he started college at age 11 and graduated at 15, admit today yale law school, delayed to work and after graduating from law school at age 21, joined the state department to work for richard, focusing on ngo's, afghanistan, and pakistan and became hillary clinton's special adviser for global youth issues. in 2012 he went to oxford on scholarship.
5:23 am
network kept ronan on. after lack of support for pursuit of weinstein, ronan, took the story to the new yorker and finished it there. last year he came out with a well-known book, earlier this year earned ph.d, all that and ronan has yet to turn 32. [cheers and applause] [laughter] >> former federal prosecutor, sunny also hosts executive producers truth about murder which is about to start on the paid tv network investigation discovery where she will be highlighting the stories of
5:24 am
victims and their loved ones. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming ronan and sunny. [cheers and applause] >> as we launch into the conversation i just have to say i asked and was really excited and hoping that you could do it because sunny has been such a powerful voice on this, i don't know if you've seen the way she speaks up about issues of sexual violence and covered up by powerful people on the view,
5:25 am
including in contentious conversations. >> sometimes. >> it's really important and it really shows guts and your whole history as a prosecutor and as a journalist who las been about speaking truth to power. i'm honored. >> thank you, thank you. >> let's talk about the allegations about former today's show matt lauer and that made a lot of news, nbc claims that lauer was fired in 2017 for inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace and that they only found out about it very shortly before he was fired, but in the book you write that they knew about his behavior for a long time. >> so, i think it's important to note here there are very salacious headlines around individual allegations and that's not incorrect that those get a lot of attention, they are very serious claims, they should
5:26 am
start a conversation but what is uncovered in this book and documented it's much bigger than any network star and network executive. it's about patterns of cover-up in corporate america and the way in which people get hurt if problems are swept under the rug with payouts and nondisclosure agreements instead of addressed. we talked about this several times, component of the harvey weinstein case and cbs news and reporting about nbc news, this is a company that had previously claimed that there were no sexual harassment settlements in the company, 6 to 7-year period, i document in the book paper trail of at least 7 settlements that multiple people involved said were sexual harassment complaints years before matt
5:27 am
lauer's hiring. >> years before. >> i personally spoke to senior executives at leadership role in the company about problem with matt lauer. >> now my understanding is rather than call them settlement agreements they were called enhanced severance agreements. >> yes, enhanced severance. >> what does that mean? >> well, it's a good question. these are the problems that you see when a problem is being covered up and nbc's news rebuttal to all of this is in the book and you can judge yourself and they continue to
5:28 am
claim that these really were severance packages and they just paid this women 7 figures vastly more than someone would get departing the company and coincidently she had a sexual harassment complaint. coincidences. >> why? >> it's worth noting that this is what a coverup looks like, it is terms that allow you to avoid saying what the thing actually is and you know, sexual violence and doesn't say in big bold letters, this is trying to talk around the issue entirely.
5:29 am
>> and severance agreements? >> this company found a way to consistently to sweep the problem under the rug. >> let's talk briefly about brook neville because nbc says when they found out about her allegation, that's when it was too much, that's when -- you know, he had to go, matt lauer was fired. her allegation if true were of rape, she says she was raped, she reported it to nbc, they fired him. it was not recorded to the police. it was not reported to the police, it was not reported to the da's office, what exactly did she tell you happen to her? >> she described a rape by any legal definition of the term and her full story and all its complication is layed out in the book and i encourage people to
5:30 am
read it in context rather than reading the headlines and matt lauer, his think asking reflected in here too and he released fiery letter with menacing tone that might come forward with allegations and that he had subsequent contact. >> he wrote a response letter and he says that brook's account is categorically false and said sexual encounter with her was consensual, she was an enthusiastic and willing partner and he also says that all of these women have had affairs with have abandoned shared responsibility but that she continued after this alleged rape to have sexual relationship with him and many people are questioning her because of that, they are questioning the rain, -- rape, well, if you were
5:31 am
really raped why would you go back and have a sexual relationship? >> this is a reporting theme, a response that harvey weinstein has to the allegation against him, in many cases these were women that went back to him in various ways and he says at one point in contentious calls when we are fact-checking the piece and seeking comments from them, it's not rape if they come back and that is not consistent with any legal definition of rape, not consistent with any ethical position of rape and, indeed, you would know better than i, that these are crimes committed by pastors, bosses, parents. >> power tine amic. >> power dynamics. >> there was a machine that spun up from the moment brook neville
5:32 am
came to nbc and described sex act, this company, despite her attorney signaled this is not consensual, began to plant in the press and to discuss within that news organization that that was an affair. >> yeah. >> and, you know, i understand that there's a strong incentive for certain executives tat company who are underscrutiny for not doing enough to stop this over the period of time to down play it and if they knew it, they knew of something lesser, in fact, that's what she described and the follow-on context that she describes are
5:33 am
not consistent with affair. as a junior employee at the company, the most powerful man at the company was in a dynamic that she described as entrapment when he said come to my apartment for drinks. >> come to my office, come to my dressing room. >> right, at sometimes as she struggled to get away from this in the gnarration -- narration she was under orders to get something for purely professional reasons and he would be demanding sexual favors in his office or dressing room. that is a difficult and complicated dynamic and she describes a mixed of consensual and nonconsensual, she concedes where she tried to put him at ease desperately and sent texts and made calls that sounded
5:34 am
enthusiastic because she wanted to make the situation okay and not anger the inyes by -- incredible by powerful guy over her career. >> exactly. >> that's important to note. they conflate it with the legal questions of what happened that night. >> what happened after has nothing to do with what happened that night. regardless of how he interpreted their interactions afterwards, that night she was too drunk to consent she says and she said no repeatedly to a sex act that he proceeded with. this is consistently how she has
5:35 am
told the story from the beginning. >> what you describe also in this book is a culture of misogyny baked in to the very fabric of nbc and not only just nbc but in our culture and you describe noa oppenheim. [laughter] >> the facts speak for themselves, but the tone is very measured. [laughter] >> your tone may not be measured after you read this. >> and he was i guess the head of nbc news at the time. >> right. >> and you write on page 186 during years as a writer at the harvard clemsen he wrote things that was pretty provocative, in
5:36 am
fact, he had some headlines titled reading notes and there's nothing wrong with single-sex institutions men like women need to themselves, women who feel threatened by club environment should seek pastures and women enjoy being con fined and preyed upon, they feel desired and not demeaned. now, this is the same person that would have been told about brook nevill. >> and who had the conversations with journalists at the organization immediately afterwards and said things like, she did not describe a nonconsensual interaction and was part of that machine that when she learned that this was being downplayed in this way she threw up. the way that this is handled after the fact is traumatic but there's a bigger point here about the patterns of corporate
5:37 am
behavior. she talked very eloquently about making the painful decision to come forward in this book and feeling that the women who came before her and had voiced complaints within this company about matt lauer carried sense of guilt. >> yeah. >> her alleged assault happen and that she in turn carried sense of guilt of anyone who might face violence afterwards and that ultimately is why she wanted to speak to break the cycle and -- >> sense of guilt because of the silence? >> because the moment you have a set of legal structures to conceal alleged crime and to allow their perpetrators to stay in position of power, you expose subsequent people to victimmation and that is feature of so many stories that i reported, of the weinstein company where there was nothing in hr file that was technically
5:38 am
at sexual assault, at fox on bill o'reilly and there were payouts happening over and over to conceal the record. it happened at cbs news, this is not an nbc problem, this is a problem in our culture and in corporate america and i think brook nevill is not wrong, it shouldn't have been on her shoulders to break the cycle, it should have been on the shoulders of the company. >> 7 claims of matt lauer. so a lot of people were really brave to expose the story that plays out in the book. >> i asked you this on our show, on the view, how do the folks like the oppenheihs that you outline that he also had history of preying upon people that worked for him while at nbc
5:39 am
news. >> she has read this book, has the page numbers. [laughter] >> you describe -- >> multiple women are on the record in this book saying that andy -- >> yes, yes. how do they survive something like this when you have people like megan kelly and gretchen carlson, greta who are calling to outside law firm to come in and investigate the claims and are asking if it's found to be true, they need to go, they need to be fired. >> and it is pretty striking that again and again in this book the wonderful brave journalists at nbc, many whom are sources in the book and many holding their bosses feet in the fire and demanding accountability which is a tough thing to do by your own bosses say over and over again by the chain of command and the company why don't we do an outside investigation, they demanded, it
5:40 am
has been demanded in the company for years and flatly refused and this is another big broad important point of corporate america, internal investigations, self-investigations are not investigations. >> you ask me to grade myself, i get an a every time. >> in your kids rightly so. [laughter] >> it's a real serious problem and, you know, there are a set of techniques when a company is trying to conceal something including doing their own self-investigation and then having outside firms kind of rubber stamp it without having any access to the evidence or process. >> correct. >> nbc has defloyd full set of tools but they are steadfastly said we will not do on outside investigation and i think that's pretty telling, that there's a dramatic moment in the plot that unravels in catch and kill, the journalists inside the building are so angry as this is all coming out and there's a meeting with general counsel, kim harris
5:41 am
, descends from executive suites and trying to do damage control and getting contentious questions and someone, a women journalist in the room says, you know, what about an outside investigation even if we don't like the outcome it'll help us be transparent as a news organization and kim harris gets mad and says if the press stops talking about this it will go away and another journalist says we are the press. [laughter] [applause] >> when you are able to do
5:42 am
something that hopefully helps the conversation and helps people's healing and helps transparency and accountability, you do it on the back and because of the bravery. >> the bravery of the sources, of the witnesses. >> that's right. >> but you have that story at nbc, they refuse to air it, in fact, they quoted and killed it and they to this day say, ronan didn't have enough, his sources or his story didn't meet journalistic standards and then a few weeks later, you published the pulitzer-prize winning story at the new yorker, right across the street. did you have enough, what did you have when you were at nbc and if you had enough, why did they kill it? >> of course, we had enough. [laughter] >> i think that's no longer in dispute in the conversation and the working level producer on
5:43 am
the story rich, brave guy who resigned in protest over this, did we get some applause for rich, i am with you. [applause] >> he says what everyone, every journalist who looked at this said, this thing should have been on air, we had a recorded admission of guilt from harvey weinstein, you're doing a police sting operation, we had him admitting not just to a sexual assault but serial sexual assaults and saying i'm used to that. we had multiple women named in every version of the story, it was expansive body of reporting, that's not even the point, distractions to try to pull the conversation, was it enough at a given point in time, you know, as you say, i brought it across the street and the judgment of the body reporting was absolutely enough and within a few weeks it was the story that you've all seen. but the point wasn't that it was, you know, done at any one
5:44 am
of those points in time or couldn't have expanded if they had wanted it to, the point is that they ordered us to stop. >> yes. >> and that's the striking, kind of smoking gun tell that this was not a journalistic decision that was happening. we were told to cancel interviews with raped victims, we were told to stand down and not take a single call on the subject. i was threatened that i was going to be exposed as having been terminated and let go from the company if i ever disclosed that nbc had anything to do with the story and in this book i -- over the several courses of several years uncovered what was happening at the company and the secrets that this company had that were under threat of exposure as harvey weinstein was bearing down on them on a whole slew of different conversations on emails and contacts that were going on behind our back. >> that's the thing, you outline in the story that harvey
5:45 am
weinstein was blackmailing nbc news over matt lauer allegations. >> i'm very careful to only go as far as the facts go and it is true that we have multiple sources at both nbc news and at ami, parent company of national inquirer, there was a threat communicated of the type that you just alluded to, there's also a bigger point which is indisputable which is the secret settlements and the high-level conversations about matt lauer's predation created conversation where nbc news was dealing with a lot of secrets that were about to come out and when i document these, at least 15 secret calls from top executives at nbc and harvey weinstein where they have admitted that the calls happened and promise today kill the story ahead of any journalistic decision being made, it is very clear when you look at the calls that these were executives who
5:46 am
felt cornered, they felt like they did have secrets to guard and were simultaneously brokering and enforcing secret sexual harassment settlements while telling me that their legal judgment was that we could not report on secret sexual harassment settlement that is harvey weinstein had made. and as they turn out, they were talking point given to them by hostile subject, harvey weinstein. my hope by exposing this there's a conversation about how to prevent this from happening to other people within the company who might be targeted in violent acts but individuals cloaked by the kinds of legal practices and a conversation about how to prevent this from happening to any other journalist with a tough lead. >> that's the thing, you also discuss in this book that harvey weinstein went to great lengths to keep this story under wraps, he went so far as to hire spies
5:47 am
to follow you and other reporters, so much so that you felt your life was in danger and people advised you to get a gun. >> multiple sources advised me to get a gun, i moved out of my apartment, i was very stressed out and not getting a lot of sleep, looking over my shoulder a lot and i am like you, you know, someone with a legal training background and i am naturally inclined towards skepticism and there are many points in the plot that plays out in the book where i'm the last to admit, okay, something bizarre is something here because even then you don't expect that the answer to the bizarre thing that's happening is an international espionage plot involving former agents and russian spies subcontractors outside of your apartment and like an international attempt posing as a source. >> yeah. >> things that happen in actual
5:48 am
life. >> unbelievable. >> people are kind of reading the book and, you know, picking their jaws off the floor. >> i did. >> right. there's a lot of reviews that have now said it reads like a spy thriller which is in a way glamorizing after the fact. .. ..
5:49 am
>> very aware and grateful for the fact that i am not a journalist in pakistan or russia or any of the places where your reporting on power. in journalists are killed in the live of the work every single day. in the work is so important and so precious. it is important and precious in our democracy is it too. all of the stories about exotic and underhanded tactics deployed by powerful and wealthy people about the ways in which news organizations get subverted in the suppression for powerful people. all of it goes to these
5:50 am
questions about our access to free and transparent information in our democracy. in the stories we tell ourselves, as we enter our next election time. the leadership decisions. [applause] this matters. and i never want to see kinds of life or death things that i describe are in the world transpire here in our country. >> i often say that's the first amendment, because it is the most important. [applause] >> it is the only impression specifically protected in the constitution. that is true for a reason. the book is sort of a loophole letter to fellow journalist for there are stories all through this. also to the horses. which continues to be in refused to stop in the face of opposition there is an incredible whistleblower named sleeper. it comes forward and is very traumatic turn of events in history expose this espionage operation.
5:51 am
one of the occasionally slightly bumbling, spies soviet union c-euro-sign my apartment and chased me around. - adjacent neither who looks like meet by mistake for a while. [laughter] and then they're like, is at hand. they call me on my cell phone. i pick up on the brother side of town. they are cursing in russian. there like pulling long hours. [laughter] but one of the spies is on retail, actually has this incredible evolution that it will reveal all of it. because it's in the book. the pivotal story in unexpected ways. and start to talk about having grown up in a police state. and knowing what is disliked to have the press actually controlled by the powerful. how people can suffer as a result. and therefore feeling invested in turning around. it is very moving to me. i hope that the stories means
5:52 am
that you close the back cover of this book. did you all get your copies. [applause] >> is wonderful. >> i am honored for anybody who takes the time to read it. i hope you will initiate and feel optimistic. screaming absolutely. one thing that struck me, which are friends in common. one thing that struck me was some of the stories that you write about lisa bloom. also an attorney, and how you felt almost tricked by lisa. what he mean by that. >> she has in recent days, apologized to me and brother reporters. >> she came an all sort show and also apologized. >> in a bit of an apology to her. [laughter] i would see justifiably. [laughter] and she should perhaps consider apologizing to brother women who she demised.
5:53 am
[applause] and she has said in recent days that heated up and she never lied to me in our calls. and, you know, she really believed that, that i don't say she understands the spirit of honesty. in the conversation amongst friends or attorneys or individuals. because lisa bloom in the story is the double agent. she has brought disclosing that she is representing harvey weinstein and she is having conversations where she is presenting herself as an ally. she had for years, appeared on my cable news program advocating for victims of powerful men. it presented herself as an activist on women's rights who wrote defending my sister and the credibility of my sisters claim against woody allen.
5:54 am
i admired lisa bloom and respected her. and she cashed in on the admiration and respect that she had built. to work for harvey weinstein and to gaslight and undermine and attack women. in two wash party clippers. she will have to reckon with the consequences of that. i say that her behavior specifically with me, i see, look i know were not on attorney-client privilege here. we are both attorneys that just as two lawyers, the working profession that's bedrock is respecting confidences. if i'm going to answered you in retrospect it's especially probing questions about who i'm working with, i need to know that i have your assurance that you are not going to disclose to the person i am reporting on anyone around them. she said absolutely i swear no
5:55 am
way. and when i told her that it was working in harvey weinstein, immediately afterwards, harvey machine started targeting these women begin wrapping up. i became increasingly suspicious but it was only later that i confronted her. i said, lisa, you promised and at this.i had received a number of threat levels letters from harvey feinstein with her signature on it. her name was at the bottom of it. as cocounsel. letters that included among brother things, arguments that my sister had been brainwashed. and was crazy. things that directly contradicted years of this and she put her name on this. these are threats to wipe me out. from a friend. i sit her, you gave me your word as an attorney and as a human being that you would not tell his people. and she said, run and i am his people. and that was my reaction to.
5:56 am
shocking. it is shocking. jody cancer and megan have done excellent reporting and covering things like memos and promising to demolish these women. and expense reports where she was chatting opposition operations against me. >> and rose mckellen was also a target as well. >> absolutely. mckellen was a target from lisa bloom and lisa bloom did in competition with me. but also from this whole international empty espionage operation, she had an unhurt undercover agent, pose as a women's rights activist and become her best friend to the point where rose mckellen, finally said there is no one in the world that i can trust except you. and this woman was secretly recording crows and sending
5:57 am
those recordings to her alleged rapist. most of the stories about women who are really examples of bravery. also there are a lot of men and women in these pages who are i hope, cautionary tales who about how just how depraved and ethically bankrupt you can become when her name and power are at stake. assuming you mentioned your sister, and i say she is very brave as you know. >> thank you. i agree. [applause] and that's always been significant coming from you, because you do look at the facts of cases like this. i know you stay on from a perspective of being ready in. i say when people return to that case with fresh eyes and look at the facts. it is pretty shocking. the missed charge of justice. >> no question. what was also shocking to me is
5:58 am
amazing because your estranged father, woody allen, and try to argue that the situation with your sister, who's accused woody of molesting her though woody maintains his position says, weinstein says that you had an agenda because of that. harvey weinstein tells you on the phone that you couldn't save someone beloved and now you say you can save everyone. >> there a lot of instances in this book, and beyond the stories that i work on where personal and painful things get weapon iced against me. they sit at the for us as generalists to go up against top stories and a lot of stuff gets thrown at you. one common playbook is how personal can you get. in harvey weinstein sent legal threat letters that were full of things like extensive discussion of an uncle i have who's convicted of pedophilia whom i've never met.
5:59 am
it was. pair how this was relevant to the monday women accusing of harvey poinsettia rape. but i guess the idea was to kind of convey some sense of hypocrisy like. you have some of this near him is it too. >> yes. >> true, i'd be the first to see it. and similarly, this is very painful effort to organize my sister's allegations that she has that has him as divine. no journalist hosts thought that. reporters who become deeply invested in investing at work, to have equality. that's a real theme in this book. one of the characters is this wonderful new yorker writer is great kind of gentle guy who is from another era. he talks in this very stately way. for years, is the harvey weinstein sorry but i didn't get it over that is fine but very generous of me, is like the homicide hip-hop kept up at night by the case that got away.
6:00 am
he is more slide, obsessed and fixated and as i kind of got these arguments thrown at me, i really question is there any truth to the idea they can can be is it too close to a story. sure, if you have an actual conflict of instant of deal gone bad. that's another matter. on the matter like this with there's no factual links. but there is a link in terms of caring about an understanding with "the issue is". that is, not only a positive, but in some ways, necessary to some extent. every one of us as generalists bring to the table our investment in the issues where it reporting on. and that doesn't mean that you have a stake in the facts shaking out one way or another on an individual story. i was adversarial as sources with accusations against harvey ornstein. i grilled a hell of him. i was skeptical at all times and wheeling to go where the facts
6:01 am
mainly. those pieces are very paired to harvey weinstein. the site, i understood how crucial this issue was. because of my sister's experiences. and how important was to the culture that these women were doing this brave thing. >> the theme of trust comes up over and over again. in this book. and i wonder and i get asked this question all the time. i was prosecuting cases. any witnesses to trust you. how did you get these women to trust you. >> i would like to hear about your process. >> i was one of the prosecutors that was wheeling to go to people his homes and often the door and see, i care. i want to hear your story. and i will do everything i can to bring justice to you. i will do everything in my power but i need to hear your story.
6:02 am
>> on a teller at my and i don't even have woody taylor. >> [laughter]. >> on there. the main, that is of course. that takes time to build trust. there was a very different but this is the point of commonality. it is about study and trust building. in giving someone agency. not browbeating them into anything. and when people make a life altering decision like coming forward with a very serious claim about a powerful person. >> tremendous bravery. >> of course, in a criminal context it takes tremendous memory and it really does grapple it with a resolute realization that your life may never be the same again. i say a lot about the story of annabella fuhrer, who had an incredibly upsetting allegation of violent rape. that was about harvey weinstein.
6:03 am
i say it has good days and bad days as most of people of trauma due to the state. it was almost impossible on a physical loophole for her to get that story out and articulated. almost impossible to listen to on some loophole two. for me as a reporter and eventually for the public. these are unfathomable for ours. she did a brave thing after a long time of not being sure she was going to which included phrases, and she let me tell the story eventually, picking up the phone when i first contacted her and panicking in staying i don't know anything, i don't know anything. which is another common these conversations. she not only decided on to tell the story but now has volunteered to testify in army weinstein his criminal case. that is upsetting and it is re- traumatizing, and again thrust her up against the dynamic she
6:04 am
is in her life will never be the same. her public profile will never be the same grade she is an actress, she's an actress who loved her work and never was known for anything but hard work. it's not in the tabloids, and she talked during our reporting conversations and some of this is in the books. this is about knowing that she would now be walking into, restaurants with her kids are walking out of the street and people would know this incredibly invasive personal horrible demeaning thing about her. and i hope that she has come to some feeling that they also know something about her bravery and that she is standing up for something much bigger than herself and that is so important so monday brother people out there. none of that makes it easy. >> i talk about this almost every day hud are part of io, the trump is involved in this book to praise >> oh yeah.
6:05 am
>> has brought so shocking to me. honestly. each of the story of american media inc. in the national enquirer, keeping a safe and filled with top-secret and sensitive donald trump related documents that was abruptly shredded in 2016. >> look how excited she is to talk about this. [laughter] screaming shredded. but you saw some of it. he saw it. >> so this is the first time that a reporter has mayday master list during the election of all of the trumpeter that the inquirer had. over the years and yes with so monday stories about inquirer and american media eight, the story is in the process that played out around that list. i lift more than it is about the content. there were five affairs, about 60 items >> 60 items.
6:06 am
spirit is called drone donald trump killed. he had referenced to kill the stories in the top. include reference about harassment some public some not. and as far as i could keep in the headline descriptions, allegations of misconduct. there. it appears on some loophole. there was discussion at least one allegation of misconduct. in our case. expect oh that's right. >> is subsequently become public. so i want to be clear to not over blow, and said that we discovered on that list was here some brand-new smoking gun about donald trump, and should also be pointed out that was supposed to be a complete list of dirt. that was the design of the list. but it doesn't necessarily represent the fully universe of the inquirer his knowledge about trump. which makes it of the fact that we uncover in this book in fact checking team as a fourth, which is, it makes another fact that
6:07 am
even more relevant because either files on that list or brother files that have not been identified and all were destroyed. that was destroyed by the inquirer in the days leading up to the election. we have multiple stores will documented account of a shredding party at this company which is now admitted in front of the prosecutors that may have a mullet violated the election laws to try to scream the outcome of the 2016 race. by varying the stories. in the trail of clues that led me from the inquirer bearing stories for army weinstein, to a series of stories that are great and brand-new one involving donald trump and epstein that has not been disclosed. before this book came out. it's a socket that has a lot of significance not just for the media world for the way that the political weights in our country played out. >> these stories really are about a culture.
6:08 am
of sexual harassment. they have hit so monday companies and we are talking about cbsn bloomberg and weinstein and warner bros., pixar now abc. do you say, there's more to come. >> i say it is, i say there's more to come and i don't say that's i know there is more to come. i see it because of the vastness of the systems that we are talking about. there's always very clear to me, that this story has brought significant just because harvey weitz is the big deal, it's about more than anyone producer in more than just the entertainment industry. this is about patterns of power protecting power in every industry and all around the world and we are just beginning to see a conversation about that. and you talk about the unique significance of the media, and
6:09 am
how it shapes the future of our nation. so i am very glad that that conversation is now happening across multiple companies in the media including abc but that is not the only area we need to focus on and it will take great forces and whistleblowers continuing to speak at brave reporters continuing to not back down in the face of all of these intimidation and if we want to see him march towards accountability. with questions from the audience. is now a good time to knit. >> questions guys yes. >> are public narrative has been shaped by predators and their enablers and the news media and hollywood, what can we do as a public, and is journalist, to
6:10 am
reclaim that narrative. >> that's a good question. well i say that every journalist speaking out about this and continuing to report on this, as part of that solution and we have seen in response to the reporting editing on cbs news a whole lot of people step up in the forthright about addressing the problem and we've eventually saw it on leadership change at that company precisely because of the great journalist there and they refused to shut up about it. right after i reported on audible out allegations of sexual assault, at the end of the company, very much a darling of wall street and some on the board, had been protected for years and years even though they knew he was on on criminal investigation. you saw people get on the air and see, i demand accountability from my boss even though he is my boss. in the wake of this nbc reporting that we've seen multiple nbc reporters do the same thing and chris hayes
6:11 am
program. cutback. >> wonderful. >> there is a really hard thing to be afraid to stay on up and call your bosses. thank we've god there are generalists who have that backbone. so that's part of the answered. i say all of us in the public two, the decisions we make about where we consume the media and the media companies can influence the decision. >> in terms of the parent company cbs news, don't you demand that contest be good corporate citizens and investigate nbc news. >> i'm a reporter not an activist on this issue in my part of the job is to very fairly interrogate the facts. i am so grateful and out of those facts are out in the world, they are pumping things like this letter sent by all these reporters and their needs to be an effort from this parent company to ensure that people are getting hurt.
6:12 am
as these organizations and that the coverages independent of that. i can't see and part of that post, first see that i know the outcome of it should be but i can see that i am admired by anyone who acts on them and tries to translate it into change. >> here's another question. i was disturbed by nbc's decision to sit on its infinite for several days, i was disturbed as well. in 2016 until somebody linked to the washington post. has your reporting on any trends and fortunate editorial decision-making that extends beyond weinstein. >> i would see that a significant portion of this book is devoted to exactly that. it is a trend that it does extend beyond any one example. in the backdrop of the axis hollywood tapes, being set on by
6:13 am
the same executives and nbc news. and the effect that that had on the culture. it is very prominent in the story. it was a part of the backdrop of the reporting conversations i had of the course of these events the women i was talking to, especially for kind of set up in the situation. over and over again, that we come up as a theme. the people were seeing enough. because hundred in this moment for politics where people look the brother way in response to that. and news organizations, seems to have been sitting on or suppressing or not, and ensuring that the public saw and reacted and also my to this. people were frustrated. and rightly so. >> thank you for your questions. on sexual assault survivor, i would like to see thank you for shining a live on such a
6:14 am
pervasive problem. as a journalist, i would like to ask, how do you separate yourself from your work. i mention it's hard. thank you. to resent. >> thank you teresa and thank you for everyone, [applause] who is brave enough to be forthright about the stuff. it is really hard. and the question is the good one. there is a struggle that plays out and i say it is worth pointing out. it is a story with the beginning and a middle and an end. i mayday decision to not do a book there was a survey piece by string of different pieces of reporting. and it's about a specific set of characters and the emotional his weapons now is the part of that is the chronicle of very my life that happens to be personal and honest and transparent about ways which i let down people around me in ways which i felt vulnerable and frightened. there was a hard decision to make. and it chronicle for a long time i resisted it.
6:15 am
and i just wanted desperately to cannot be the story. particularly for somebody like me who, i guess, i missed a lot of scandalous turmoils of but mostly i focus on the incredible opportunities i had the earnestly wanting to pay this for medtronic hand. but because of the background, i really wanted to work to stay on on the 700 and been very sensitive about being in the long shadow of some of those personal things. sonic came into the situation where i was on here everyday, and good journalists were asking me, why are you talking about late you were targeted. why aren't you talking with the shutdown of your reporting. i would see, what the underlying story. at this moment in the sun and at these great sources and the focus should be on that. none of us wants to be the story. i would see no, the story not being told. that is significant and of itself and in the end, i struggle with that and decide, they are right.
6:16 am
they were right to grooming. and i did have to spend a couple of years investigating this. and to really tell it honestly. i had to tell the full arc of my involvement in it. >> anything surprise you. >> moral of the story if you have spies chasing you, you are going to become the story a little bit. i say it is possible to both the transparent about your role in the story and rigorous about reporting on it. and i say this book has been received and people understand that it's a good book. >> will how did you manage to juggle this book and reporting and your dissertation. >> [laughter] [applause] >> i'm wondering how to do that.
6:17 am
>> thank you, who did that question. thank you very much. [laughter] i am a big nerd. i guess it's probably already clear. and i did finish a phd earlier this year. >> congratulation. >> thank you. and i had to like, write it, i do my doctorate at oxford that i had to fly to england, [laughter] and i had to fly to england in the middle of wine and great stories that i'm doing, and it took me, honestly i say a full seven years to do this. so has brought live, and when my fact checkers sent a gift or gift of the pokémon slow king. [laughter] to describe our
6:18 am
progress. so i didn't move fast with my doctoral degree. most of the time i had got to england to kinda kiss the ring and tell the professor that i am still working on it. and oral exams and to go through. anytime we have conversations for this. they would kind of, so you up here to be anchoring an american television show everyday. >> and i would see yes but that is a side project. [laughter] [applause] my academic no time at oxford. [laughter] i'm recently going for my final oral exam and the degree and to the surprise, [laughter]. twenty-eight are you doing it with things. is this your full time. >> i would have to see this is my main priority [laughter]. >> i love it i love it. [laughter]. >> the front of me and michael's ship. and i did in the end have to work really hard on it.
6:19 am
and something like 150 pages, is the full, social science dissertation and ischemic ties in, weather there is a correlation between the loophole of deception relationships in the united states and with proxy armies and the cost of those relationships. has brought as boring as sounds stop laughing. [applause] is very serious. >> i love it. okay this comes from peter. how do you prepare for interviews. do you prepare and see with your questions in advance. >> this really varies. i'm a big prepare, so you preparing for this. it warms my heart because it is a big prepare. >> i am, terrible. >> is great. that is something to be found in my thinking just about any
6:20 am
profession. i do a lot of scripting and preparing when i am doing broadcast interviews. that is a very different discipline if you doing a live interview versus if you are doing a taped interview and things like an hour with angelina jolie or something. this could be a special that you have one set of priorities. that also if you are doing contentious, cable news interview with a politician, it's a whole brother kind of art that you are constructing. you are thinking ahead and trying to plot a series of satisfying reveals. and there is a little more kind of, recent showmanship to the live tv cable news dive boat interviews. nsa cable especially because those tend to be, on the view, one of thing i love about the format is ivillage or that. he could to make the break, i say able to talk about seriousness in which this particular group of women in this version of the view have
6:21 am
those proceedings. >> people who enjoy interviews. >> is the badge of honor. it's on some people. and i was so new raise serious issues than this really important in a support to get that to the audience the mishap. it's a position of power comes with responsibility though since the play out over a slightly longer forum. if you have a few minutes thank cable segment you are really getting in the hip. and by contrast, when you are doing television investigative reporting, give all of the time in the world and very often you are actually, you are doing a lot of ramp-up is never going to make it on camera. and then trying to get to a soundbite. and you are kind of thinking in terms of individual public pieces more than the whole. >> nesting, if you have it all in sequence and all written out, sometimes you are not listening to the answered and then you can't build on it. i found. disconnect absolutely can you kinda have to, i found both example.
6:22 am
a lot of planning, and a blueprint of where you could go in and the willingness to really be in the moment and could've enough familiarity with the blueprint. that you can not focus on it. just have it there as a reference. and use that as a jumping off. >> topic area. >> you might jump off of it you might go into a new direction. but you have it. >> i say of that. i am anymore. brave additional cards. maybe. >> are you guys feeling satisfied with the number of questions. it's [applause]. are you good. [applause] are right they are good. [applause] i say the good. i want it to compensate we are only human. >> i am right at time actually. [laughter] [applause] >> like a true prosecutor. i have one more question. what is next for you.
6:23 am
>> i get asked that question a lot and i never know how to answered it. you can hear me stalling for time. because i don't know. i have been so immersed in getting the reporting this book airtight. i have so much respect for anyone who writes a book. books are really hard. how monday in this audience have written a book. we have a couple of accreditors. i am there with you. like we've god bless you. it is hard. it's hard for the writer and a rather minor, i was such a nightmare to put up with during the whole lot of the images described in this book. we've god bless my wonderful partner to put up with me. timemac. great isn't it. >> it is really hard. and i, this particular book, and against any investigative book, you are doing several different things at once.
6:24 am
one of which is, you are doing a multiple year very contentious investigation is getting a lot of threats and a lot of legal threats and it's a high wire act and you go to powerful people with very difficult revelations, fact checking and it's a very precise almost legalistic work. then the same time doing it completely different and difficult things which is creating a dramatic work. where the plot moves at the right pace. and there's complete real nuance and interest in the characters. and everyone the book has a coherent art from beginning in the middle and end this book in particular is the little bit of a chinese thought. there's an threats that are braided together and converging and hopefully satisfying in unexpected ways. it's been such a relief after years of trying to fine-tune the sort of piece of intricate
6:25 am
machinery to put it down world and be like, is it like my baby. you like my baby. >> critically acclaimed. [applause] >> i am so grateful for the reviews in the way the public has rallied around it. and both on a reportorial loophole where people have really rallied around these great sources. and they cut through a lot of and in bs in legal threats, for instance got it man in australia for several days. as the head of the national enquirer. don't clap for that. stay on this book. [laughter] >> [laughter] >> the head of the national enquirer to, viewers for weinstein in for, drug and did not want people reading this book. reasons you can probably know. you hire lawyers in every region of the world and amazon australia, caved and then yeah,
6:26 am
you can do that went out one. [applause] and a couple of brother things, i love the history. a couple of big retailers were la it. and as can a moving tribute to the importance of respect astral is rush out and got it from independent booksellers and imported it and now the chains are la it now in its thalia including amazon so free speech winds but all of which to see is meant a lot that people are rallying around this way. and also at the same time understood that it is a yard that is about more than the headlines and more than just the sum of its parts. and i am so excited for you all to read it. and am so grateful that you took the time to talk about it. [applause] >> my pleasure and my honor actually. my honor. [applause] mr. ronald farrell ladies and gentlemen. screaming [applause] >> thank you guys.
6:27 am
>> thank you.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on