The MAN who
Oh will you look at that now.
Interesting to see the two female journos who actually broke the story being written out of history already pic.twitter.com/06LzCf2Q5Y
— Barbara Speed (@bspeed8) December 10, 2017
The MAN who took down WEINSTEIN the headline shouts.
It’s in the Times, the one in London, the one Murdoch owns.
The one in New York, the one Murdoch does not own, broke the story before Ronan Farrow did. Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey broke the story, after months of investigation. All three of them took down Weinstein.
Well, you couldn’t have the newspaper giving credit to a mere woman, now, could you? Or women? Because everyone knows that women are much lesser beings than men, and how in the world could they possibly defeat a major ogre? There always needs to be a white knight to rescue the damsels in distress, not a damsel to rescue other damsels! That would destroy the entire history of the earth, and probably cause some sort of paradox that led to the entire literary world imploding, and taking the rest of us with it!
/s
His pupils look strange there. Is he really Rosemary’s baby?
Rrr, he’s been photographed using a ring flash.
@Rob Yeah, I was just being obese. (Obsolete? Obelisque?) ;)
No, bless oblique?
I’d like to read more of the story before coming to conclusions. From the cut-off text I can see Kantor and Twohey are mentioned, so they’re not being completely written out.
Maybe the article ends up making a case that Farrow somehow played the most pivotal role? In theory that could be true based on the merits and not sexism. (Note that I’m not arguing that IS true. I don’t know but am inclined to doubt it.)
From what I can read from the picture, though, I suspect this is a Farrow puff piece, perhaps one previously in the works, and the headline writer got out of hand. That is very commonplace, as you often see authors complaining they didn’t write the headline and that it doesn’t match what they wrote in the article.
Or it could be pure sexism. Who knows? I guess I could if I wanted to set up a Times account but I don’t.
Hopefully Kantor and Twohey will get their due, and not in a stupid article like this. I mean “celebrity DNA”, “angelic good looks”, and “the blue-eyed boy from Manhattan”? Really?
Really the post is just about the headline. The headline by itself is annoying, even if the article gives Kantor and Twohey their due.
Yeah, even if there was no intention to write the other two out of the story, how did nobody look at the final layout without thinking, “Um…yeah, wow, this needs to be redone”?
No way that headline and its aggressive layout wasn’t a deliberate statement.
Farrow is ‘Farrow,’ therefore touched with stardust and more important than mere journalists.
The piece appears in the Time’s Style section. And the subtitle reads: “The son of Hollywood royalty, it was easy to write Ronan Farrow off as more style than substance….”–there’s the focus of the story–“Until he helped uncover the news story of the year.” Helped.
Fluffy story, but it gave me a laugh. As I read, I wondered why Glancy referred to Farrow as Woody Allen’s son (come ON), until I came to this:
Biological essentialism, folks. Because apparently a parent is a DNA donor and not a person who does any parenting.
I might contact the Trans Cabal on the secret Trans Activist line and see if we can use our post-modernist cultural maxist standover tactics to have bioessentialism declared a mental disorder in the next DSM. :-P