January 9, 2018--Jack: One Helluva Book

"I've been watching MSNBC non-stop . . ."

I interrupted, "What? MSNBC? I thought you hated them."

"I do, but I wanted to get a taste of where you and your friends get your news. Or should I say, your opinions."  I hadn't heard from Jack in a few weeks and wasn't unhappy about that. He can get under my skin and cause me agita. "And what a week it's been!"

He's not a drinker but sounded intoxicated. I said, "I'll bet you've had your fill about that book." I didn't think I needed to identify it further.

"It's one helluva book, that I'll give you. But of course it's mainly based on fake news." He chuckled at that.

"In a moment I'll want you to give me examples of where it's fake. I'm sure the Fox News people, who I know you watch, have filled you with their talking points. Amazing, isn't it, that all the Fox people sound the same. From that really mindless show in the morning, Fox & Friends, all the way through the day until Trump's brain has his show--Sean Hannity. At least they dumped that sexual predator, Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention Rojer Ailes."

"You mean like with your guys--Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, and Charlie Rose? I could go on."

"You got me there," I admitted. 

"And are you trying to deny that everyone on MSNBC has the same opinions? Is there any daylight between the views of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachael Maddow, and Lawrence O'Brien?"

"I agree about that and its not my favorite thing. But you're distracting me. I thought we were talking about the Wolff book and comparing our opinions. Not Fox's, not MSNBC's."

"You're the one who started this by slamming Fox News and their alleged talking points."

"Enough about that," I said, "Let's move on. I want your overall opinion of the book. Assuming you've read it. Even many Trumpers are admitting that though there are lots of specific errors and examples of sloppiness--they rushed to publish it and didn't do a great job of fact checking and editing--they don't detract from the overall story: that everyone agrees that Trump is like a nine-year-old child who needs constant attention and adulation. And, it would appear, is not too smart. Doesn't read, doesn't listen."

"Again, you guys are missing the bigger point."

"I'm listening," I said without intended irony.

"How this book is actually helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"Simple. First, who loves this book?" Without waiting Jack added, "The mainstream media. On MSNBC and even CNN it's Michael Wolff nearly 24/7. He was just on Morning Joe for a patty-cake interview that went on uninterrupted for about half an hour. He didn't have to defend himself about factual errors since Joe and Mika did it for him, including sloughing over things he wrote about them and the show that were errors."

"I saw that and that's true. But, again, you're missing the bigger picture--that even with errors of this kind Wolff got the larger story essentially correct. It's in the nature of books of this kind. They live in the world between day-to-day news reporting and more reflective histories."

"Trump's people don't think in these professorial-type terms. What they know is that their boy is being unfairly hounded by the media--of course except by Fox--and they are rising to protect him from them. Wait for his next favorability numbers. I'm betting they'll be up five points."

"That would be pathetic," I said. "How sad that these people still are oblivious to the truth."

"You're deluding yourself," Jack said, "But OK, let's move on to others who are helping Trump shrug off the book."

"Shrug off? That's not what I'm hearing. That Trump's ranting and raving. Especially about Wolff saying Don Junior committed treason. Even you have to admit that's a serious charge."

"Actually, it was Wolff quoting Steve Bannon. And about the charge, not necessarily. If Don Junior was involved in helping the Russians undermine our presidential election, what would you call it? Collusion? Collusion, by the way, is not a legal term or potential crime."

Ignoring my point Jack moved to redirect the conversation. He said, "And then the GOP establishment also loves the book. It may be that they'll pay for that by getting shellacked in the November midterm elections, but for the moment they like the idea that it pulls Trump closer to them and further under their influence. Wounded and vulnerable he needs their endorsement and protective cover. In other words, he's weaker and therefore more pliable. He'll sign anything Congress passes. And he already indicated he'll support all Republican incumbents and not go up against them by campaigning for anti-establishment insurgents as Bannon had him doing."

"That may be true," I acknowledged. "But that's pretty pathetic too."

"Speaking of Bannon," Jack said, "There's also benefit to Trump by the book bringing down Bannon. Nothing else has been able to do that but all the anti-Trump quotes from Bannon will be like driving a stake through his heart. Minimally, it will drive him back to drink. 

"I'm not sure I'm following your point. Nor that when he's desperate Trump will not seek Bannon out."

"It's again a simple point--Trump is better off without Bannon hovering around than he is with him always whispering in his ear. Bannonlessness makes Trump seem more independent, more his own person. His base will eat that up. They like macho."

"Boy, you've gotten cynical."

"That's what hanging around with the likes of you does to me," Jack guffawed. "But, seriously, the bottom line is that to Trump followers the book looks like a hatchet job written by the kind of people they despise, including east coast snobs who think they're smarter than everyone. The see them to be hypocrites who, when on their high horses, criticize conservatives for not telling the whole truth but rationalize it when their people--like Wolff--engage in fake news."

I was reluctant to admit it, but he had some good points. He managed to get under my skin again, but I felt, to be credible, I needed to have my views checked out and challenged. Even by the likes of Jack. If there's something to learn, the source shouldn't matter. Though I sure feel like not answering when I see it's Jack calling!

December 5, 2017--The Ugly Reaility

The latest sexual harassment outing is of James Levine, not a household name, the former music director and revered conductor of the Metropolitan Opera orchestra.

These charges, as with Roy Moore's, go back many years, actually decades, to as long ago as 1986. Again, those who revealed the abuses spoke about how they feared accusing Levine because, as musicians, he might have on-going power over their professional lives. 

In addition, as with Moore's accusers they were ashamed of what happened, including how in some cases he lured them into "relationships" in which they continued to participate. 

Most of my information about Levine's behavior as well as that of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Louie C.K., Harvey Weinstein, and of course Donald Trump comes from the New York Times. Striking to me again yesterday morning when the Levine outing appeared was how graphic the gray-old Times has been in its reporting.

In the case of James Levine there were specific and vivid descriptions of how the conductor lead his young victims into reciprocal masterbation. With Weinstein we learned about his attempts to get aspiring actresses to massage him prior to forcing them to participate in various forms of sexual activity. We learned details of Matt Lauer's office set up, including the button he had at his desk so he could lock the door to provide a safe environment for him to have forced sexual intercourse with young staffers. And then there are the details of Mark Halperin's and Garrison Keiller's sexual proclivities and "techniques."

And not to be forgotten, was the Times's publishing the transcript of the Billy Bush tape in which Trump boasted about grabbing women's p****s. With the paper of record not using the bowdlerizing ****s.

Reading the article about James Levine yesterday morning I raised this graphic reporting with Rona. I indicted I was not comfortable with it, even wondering if the Times, competing for readers, was being so explicit in order to attract subscribers who would enjoy the soft-core reporting.

Rona said, "But that's the point. To make readers feel uncomfortable. Not just intellectually but to engage our sense of disgust. To employ euphemisms would take away some of that visceral outrage."

"Good points," I conceded, "I get it and think, in my case at least, it is working. I am fully disgusted."

"One more thing," she added, "And don't think it's a stretch."

"Go on."

"You remember, I'm sure, the mass murder at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut in 2012.  Do you recall how you said at the time that to make a powerful, maybe persuasive case for some form of federal control of automatic weapons and high velocity ammunition, rather than Obama and others just talking about it, to make the case more persuasively, they should have released the autopsy photos of the murdered children so that we could see the full effects of these kinds of combat weapons on small children. It would be hideous to see. But, again, that's the point."

"I do remember that. Maybe you're right. Maybe we have to stop covering up the ugly details of sexual abuse and even mass murder."

"We can't just sit around," Rona said, "and allow ourselves to become inured to it. It's not about pseudo-outrage and titillation. We need to find active ways to fight back."

November 15, 2017--Punishing Sexual Assault

Some of the most distressing news of recent times has been the wave of outings of men with power using it to sexually assault usually younger women over whom they have authority.

But some of the best news of recent times is about the courage these women are showing as they confront their accusers and risk stigmatization and the resurrection of the emotional nightmares they experienced in some case decades ago.

From movie producer Harvey Weinstein to comedian Louis C.K. to senatorial candidate Roy Moore, and lest we forget, Bill Crosby, the stories are horrifying, yet familiar.

And, yes, there is Fox News, which makes the predatory sexual climate of Mad Men seem like an innocent tea party.  

In my case, I know one of the accused, Leon Wieseltier, the former literary editor of the New Republic. This for me brings it close to home. 

The details of Leon's behavior are sadly typical--

Several women said they were humiliated when he kissed them on the mouth in front of other staff members. Others said he discussed his sex life, including describing in detail the breasts of a former girlfriend. He made passes at female colleagues and pressed them to describe their sex lives. 

Daily, we are hearing stories like this and worse.

But things get more complicated when thinking about appropriate punishment.

With the exception of Crosby and perhaps Weinstein, it is unlikely than any of these men will be criminally prosecuted. Some are and will be sued in civil court and hopefully, if guilty, will need to pay for emotional damages that they caused.

And then there are the private settlements that have occurred. Most dramatically, Bill O'Reilly paying one of the women he abused an astonishing $32 million.

In other instances, especially when the accused are well known or famous, they will suffer public disgrace and likely lose any possibility of resuming their careers. Weinstein will never again produce a feature film, Bill O'Reilly will never return to TV, Leon Wieseltier will never write and publish another literary critique.

Some will enter sex-addiction treatment programs (or pretend to), stay out of public view for a year or so, and then attempt to crawl back to their previous occupations. Weinstein is allegedly in such a program. 

In these instances the punishment is informal--employers will not take the risk to bring them back. In the case of the news or entertainment businesses, executives will not take the chance of being picketed or that sponsors will abandon them. Sponsor abandonment and boycotting are what ultimately brought O'Reilly down.

In the case of Roy Moore, perhaps, perhaps the voters of Alabama will keep him out of the Senate and the public eye. That would serve as a version of punishment.

Coauthor of Game Change, Mark Halpern, did numerous slimy things a number of years ago (and, who knows, perhaps more recently). After being exposed recently he lost his multi-million dollar book deal with Penguin Press and was fired by MSNBC and Bloomberg News. Will any publisher or TV network ever take another chance with him? Will they trust that he will be able to control himself, or more significant to a network, that he will be able to attract viewers and thus sponsors or readers. In other words, build viewership, sell books, and make money?

While we are furious about what is daily being revealed, it is understandable that we might feel there is justice seeing these careers ruined. The perpetrators brought this on themselves and deserve all the punishment they are receiving. It seems appropriate. 

But in some instances is it possible that the consequences are beyond fairness? How do we even think about fairness in circumstances when much of the punishment occurs in extralegal ways?

I am not sufficiently without flaws to make these judgements. Difficult as it is with emotions so raw, thinking about this still seems worthwhile.

Thoughts are welcome.

Leon Wieseltier