This is not a popular thought to have in the Cancel Culture age of 2021, be it an individual or an organization. BlabberBuzz has been investigating Cancel Culture tactics by the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party and came across some disheartening facts that undermine the narrative force-fed to America about one of history’s greatest filmmakers.
There is an argument for Harvey Weinstein being a sleaze. There is an argument for Harvey Weinstein lacking basic human ethics. However, as the very first victim of a coordinated Cancel Culture attack, Harvey Weinstein is not the evil that progressives and the media have conspired to turn him into and make no mistake, they did conspire as we will show you.
The issue is Harvey Weinstein was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion long before he ever set foot in a courtroom. From the 2017 New York Times exposé on the accusations against Harvey Weinstein to the barrage of hearsay and talk show hyperbole that dominated American media. Mr. Weinstein was guilty before an indictment was even considered.
When we hear the name Rose McGowan, we think ‘unfortunate victim of Harvey’, some in the media even pose that she was a prolific actress who had her career railroaded by a powerful white man over her refusal to continue to acquiesce to his sexual advances. Her story begins in 1997 when she alleges that she was assaulted by Weinstein during her work on the Miramax movie 'Scream'. Miramax was the name of Bob and Harvey Weinstein’s production company at the time.
While the rest is he-said, she-said conjecture that is up for debate, the only fact we can verify about the incident is that she settled with the company for $100,000. It is safe to assume here that as a part of the settlement, she was prohibited from working with Weinstein on movies – which is a seemingly logical clause to protect her given her claim of rape. And yet, ten years after that settlement she claimed she was banned from auditioning for movies he was producing.
Given her previous experience and settlement with Miramax, it is highly unlikely that would have been an option for her, or for the company, Employees who sue corporations and settle rarely continue to work for or with the company moving forward. Yet, no media outlet delved into her claims too deep, and certainly, no reporter asked her hard questions. At the birth of #MeToo it was considered dangerous to challenge anyone who claimed they were violated, seemingly leaving the perception it was a fact - even though it was possible that it was not. One of the slogans of that time is "believe all women' who claimed they were victims. This does not leave room to challenge an allegation and is fundamentally wrong in general.
McGowan often claims her career was railroaded because of Harvey, and yet one look at her career shows this is the farthest thing from the truth. To be fair, the movies McGowan was cast for prior to the 1997 incident were at best ‘B’ movies. Take 1992’s stoner movie, 'Encino Man', with MTV star Pauly Shore or the 1990 dystopian Sci-Fi bomb called 'Class of 1999', McGowan was never on track for Oscar Stardom – in fact, her career was taking her towards becoming a late-night cable TV movie feature star where bad movies are always in fashion.
Next, we learned of Gwyneth Paltrow, unlike McGowan, a name most Americans have heard of and a truly talented actress. In 2019 it was revealed she was a key source in the New York Times’ piece that brought this whole affair to light. In fact, according to the authors of that Times piece, as late as 2017 Weinstein was invited to a party in Paltrow’s home and was in attendance while she was on the phone with the reporters dishing out 20-year-old dirt to help build their story. Why would she invite a predator if that was truly what she thought of him?
Paltrow spoke of being young and intimidated by Weinstein’s sexual harassment, not assault or rape, but harassment in the 1990’s sense of the word. Of course, Weinstein was being measured by the ‘Woke’ #MeToo standards of 2017 which held that even telling someone they look good in a dress would be construed as harassment.
However, Paltrow who is a consummate ‘A’ lister and Oscar winner claimed that her career suffered for not having sex with Weinstein, something no media challenged her on. To be fair to Weinstein – and being fair to Weinstein is a dangerous play in 2021 - one look at her career and it is obvious that could not be the case. In fact, even according to her own Wikipedia page, her ‘Breakthrough and Critical Success’ came in the five years after she claims she was railroaded by Weinstein for scoffing at his advances. Again, no reporter ever challenged her on this claim, no reporter asked her why she not only continued to work with him but why she befriended him during the pinnacle of her brilliant career.
Keep in mind, her most acclaimed role was as Viola de Lesseps in Weinstein’s production of ‘Shakespeare in Love’ for which she won the Oscar for Best Actress and gave a heartfelt ‘thank you' to Weinstein upon accepting her award. How could she be railroaded when she was in a movie that her ‘harasser’ produced? This is not to say that Harvey Weinstein did not make inappropriate advances to Paltrow, however like most people, she had to work in situations where she was less than comfortable and she thrived at it.
Until the allegations in the New York Times article, Weinstein was a scion of the movie industry. From The Oscars to The People’s Choice Awards, for nearly two decades actors have praised Weinstein. Take this clip as example of how much he was respected. It is a mashup of just some who have honored Weinstein when accepting their various industry awards – and it was happening from the 90's just up to the 2017 exposé. *Note the 17-second mark where Gwyneth Paltrow gave a teary-eyed and sincere thanks to Weinstein. Again, this does not prove Harvey Weinstein's innocence in anything, but it is curious given the apparent love and affection many of these women seemed to have for the man now branded a pariah.
This fact that cannot be disputed alone puts the allegations into another light (no matter how hard Google tried to bury it in their feed) – were they real or hyped up to fit a social need in the age of cries for Justice where ‘We Are All Trayvon’, 'I Can't Breathe' and ‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ dominated the media’s focus? The ‘MeToo’ movement was spawned by the Times’ article and media ran with it – regardless of the flaws in the allegations, logic, and especially their own reporting. The left was on a tear in the years preceding that. Michael Brown was not a victim, and most parents would not want their children to emulate Trayvon Martin and yet for years, the media told us otherwise. Brown & Eric Garner became the poster children for bad policing, not bad parenting as we all later learned they were not so innocent. The media was complicit then, as they were with Harvey in twisting a false narrative to attain their desired objectives.
To prove this, we look at an article by the Hollywood Reporter Eriq Gardner, who blatantly misled the public during a time that Harvey Weinstein was laying low as the #MeToo organizers were launching a daily assault on his character. In a 2018 article Mr. Gardner published, he alleged that Harvey came out of hiding, not to answer the sex allegations but trying to protect his money and business interests. The article was titled ‘Harvey Weinstein Appears in Bankruptcy Court to “Exonerate Himself”', and outlets from the Wall Street Journal to CNN used his story as fact that Weinstein came out of hiding for this and not to declare his mea culpa in front of the world. In fact, according to court records Mr. Weinstein was not there, he was represented by his attorneys.
Mr. Gardner no doubt hid behind the verbiage from the court document “Notice of Appearance. Filed by Harvey Weinstein’ as his cover for the misleading story. Mr. Gardner has made a lot of money from his Weinstein coverage, but it is obvious from the articles themselves that much of his work could be considered ‘hit pieces’ rather than actual journalism. Pieces were written with an obvious bias and harsh tone which never gave Weinstein the benefit of the doubt. The fact so many other outlets once deemed reputable used his work as a primary source is confirmation that facts did not matter when speaking of the villainous Weinstein, actual journalism did not matter when it comes to liberal ideals – only the sentiment and ensuring that it spreads is. (See Image Below)
Look at another incident where the media failed to do their job to clarify a Weinstein story and only reported the allegation. In 2018, just as the Weinstein scandal was gaining mainstream steam, the ‘Hellboy’ and ‘Sons of Anarchy’ star, Ron Perlman claimed that long before the #MeToo circus, Perlman urinated on his own hand before shaking Weinstein’s at a charity event. (See Tweet Below)
The media picked this story up and used it as supporting proof that others in Hollywood felt disdain for a ‘rapist’ long before the New York Times article was released. Not one article actually queried Perlman, with the logical question: Did he wash his hand after he shook Weinstein’s or did he proceed to go about shaking other's hands? It would be hard to imagine an actor of Perlman’s stature running to the bathroom, coming out to shake one man’s hand, and then running right back to the restroom to wash up during a charity event filled with people whose hands need to be shaken. The media dropped the ball on investigating their story, but had no problem in using the allegation to support a broader narrative that would placate the 'social justice warriors' and the women's movement that wants all women to be believed, without question.
Consequently, it was Donald Trump Jr. who called Perlman out publicly, not a liberal who was content with the narrative that a powerful Rich, White Jewish Man was in fact a predator. (See Tweet Below)
This is not to say that Harvey Weinstein is an upstanding man who is above using his position in Hollywood to bed women. In the first half of the 20th Century, movie producer Cecil B. Demille dominated the industry in the same way Weinstein had in the latter part of the century. He is often credited with creating not just the industry as it is known today, but the proverbial ‘Casting Couch’ that is no doubt an intricate part of Hollywood culture.
Demille was widely known to have slept with actresses, famous and not, as a quid-pro-quo in his 44-year career, and yet he is still honored annually through the Golden Globe award that is named for him. Does that mean what Demille had done was OK? No. During Demille's reign in Hollywood, women were treated differently from men, and while the 'Mad Men' mentality towards women is offensive, it was simply the way it was back then. Women were still being objectified and still fighting for their full rights and ask most women from that time, understood the 'game' and many wanted to play to advance their careers.
Holding the 1950's or 1990's to the same social standards as 2017 is wrong. It is the reason Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, and even George Washington are vilified in progressive circles. It is also the reason why Harvey Weinstein is called a rapist in 2021.
In the 1990’s and even the first decade of the 2000’s, it was widely known that people had to appease Weinstein if they wanted to thrive in Hollywood – that does not mean that they had to sleep with him, but surely many chose to. Condemn the behavior, but do not call it criminal, doing so only serves to portray women as weak and vulnerable when they have fought for a century to be seen as strong and independent-minded.
To say Weinstein raped someone who wanted a role in his movie is dangerous to the facts, and casts a shadow over women who are stronger today than they ever have been by portraying themselves as victims instead of willing participants. There is little doubt Weinstein took part in many Casting Couch sessions, however, did the women enter the situation willingly? No reporter ever asked that question either. Doing so would have made them an enemy of the progressive social justice movement.
Another example of how the media conspired to make Weinstein the fall guy for this #MeToo movement can be seen in how Google orders their results on certain queries. Take Seth Macfarlane’s Oscars clip from 2013 in which he joked about Weinstein’s reputation for employing the Casting Couch. When you search (Search Term: Seth-Macfarlane-2013-Oscars-Weinstein), you see a 2017 Candian news article that does not actually contain the clip, and worse, you see on the first few pages is a narrative from 2018 when he was walking back the Joke, no doubt to save his own hyde as he had active shows on Fox and was negotiating for his latest, he needed to do damage control as the video was out and about in the Twitterverse. (See Video Below)
Google prides itself on its search function which, "provides the most relevant results". They also prioritize YouTube and other video sites first before getting into mainstream articles with attached videos. If this truly was the case, why would Google hide the actual clip on page five of their results? Instead, as you can see below they shoved in articles that had some videos, videos about Macfarlane. explaining or excusing his joke but did not include the actual 2013 clip. (See Image Below, Note it is the Video Search On Google)
Finally, we get to the actual charges Weinstein was indicted on. The media will have you believe that he raped over 80 women, many as famous as Paltrow, McGowan, and Angelina Jolie, and was convicted for that. This is the farthest thing from the truth. Paltrow never said she was assaulted but few outlets clarified that fact. In the New York case, out of all the complaints, the District Attorney brought charges from only 2 women, both unknown to the public prior to the case. However, the media made it seem as if it was more. Look at the way NBC framed this. (See Image Below)
Factually, this is correct, Lucia Evans and some unknown woman were the ones who were accusing him in the indictment, but NBC throws language in and a quote from McGowan, who arguably has become more famous from her Weinstein accusations than she ever was for her acting, to make it seem as if the person who had been at the forefront of the accusations was finally getting her due. She was not. Words are powerful tools and the liberal media uses them well.
Just to note, the women who Weinstein was convicted of sexually assaulting were admittedly in relationships with him. To understand the charges that were levied against him in simple terms, think of it this way: On Sunday and Monday they had consensual sex, Tuesday she was not in the mood but he forced himself on her, and Wednesday and Thursday they had consensual sex again. Again, nothing concrete. Muddy waters and she-said, he-said conjecture. There are too many questions left unanswered and yet it seemed enough to indict and convict.
New York’s progressive District Attorney, Cy Vance was eager to take down someone big. He was widely known to have designs on higher office and with the world looking towards New York, Vance pushed the indictment – repeatedly until he finally had 30 Grand Jurors who would play his narrative. Through a bungled police investigation, and several attempts to indict before, Vance meshed a case together and rammed it through until it took. This is how Harvey Weinstein was brought down, not by hard evidence. Not with DNA or semen analysis. Not with facts that supported a brutal rape. Harvey Weinstein was brought down by sheer determination, and a mainstream media that shed any objectivity lost their ‘journalistic’ roots and became willing participants in the effort to take down the bad rich White Jewish guy with a lot of power that the 'social justice warriors' were hungry for.
Editor's Note To The Readers: Do not look at this piece as an excuse for Harvey Weinstein, we doubt anyone will ever really know the truth behind any and even all allegations. His admitted consensual affairs are reason enough to scorn him, as a man who cheats on a spouse, and a man who knowingly takes advantage of his position to entice women into his bedroom is a man of few morals and might even be ethically lacking. However, was it a crime? Is he the evil incarnate that the media portrayed? Or was the downfall of a major studio executive who was responsible for some of America’s most iconic and successful films a yield to progressives who had demanded blood from someone for the injustices to women within America? The same people did it with Michael Brown, they did it with Eric Garner and vilified the police for doing their jobs. They did it with Trayvon Martin and put Florida's 'Stand Your Groud' laws under trial. Think about it.