Everybody knows the deal is rotten

Last updated on: October 9, 2017 at 5:37 pm by Fred Clark

Everybody knows the deal is rotten 2017-10-09T17:37:18-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Since today is a Canadian holiday, let’s listen to a great Canadian:

“Everybody knows” was a theme in two otherwise disparate stories in the news over this weekend — one involving a sexually abusive Hollywood producer, the other involving a Republican senator’s war of words with a Republican president.

The first story was prompted by an ambitious New York Times investigative report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades.”

An investigation by The New York Times found previously undisclosed allegations against Mr. Weinstein stretching over nearly three decades, documented through interviews with current and former employees and film industry workers, as well as legal records, emails and internal documents from the businesses he has run, Miramax and the Weinstein Company.

… Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.

Mr. Weinstein enforced a code of silence; employees of the Weinstein Company have contracts saying they will not criticize it or its leaders in a way that could harm its “business reputation” or “any employee’s personal reputation,” a recent document shows. And most of the women accepting payouts agreed to confidentiality clauses prohibiting them from speaking about the deals or the events that led to them.

Weinstein’s long, sordid history of predatory behavior has been described as an “open secret” in Hollywood. That’s an odd phrase. It suggests something that is widely known, but not widely talked about. An “open secret” is not just a secret that everybody knows, but a secret that everybody keeps.

Of course, “everybody” doesn’t mean everybody. An open secret in Hollywood’s inner circles isn’t something most of us outside of the film industry would ever hear or know. Most of the general public will only dimly recognize Weinstein as an occasional participant in the anticlimactic culmination of every Academy Awards ceremony — the acceptance speech for Best Picture, which is given not by its director, its writer, or its stars, but by the executives who financed it. Some of us who read a bit more in the entertainment press may also have been aware of Weinstein’s reputation as a shamelessly aggressive award-season campaigner and as a bullying tycoon — a “You’ll never eat lunch in this town again!” character. But this open secret hadn’t trickled out to most of us before the Times big report made its splash last week.

And I’m sure that even within Hollywood, this wasn’t something that everybody knows. But many, many people did. For a long time. It was a secret that many people knew and, before last week’s report, it was a secret that many people — for various reasons — helped to keep. As Kantor and Twohey reported:

“It wasn’t a secret to the inner circle,” said Kathy DeClesis, Bob Weinstein’s assistant in the early 1990s. She supervised a young woman who left the company abruptly after an encounter with Harvey Weinstein and who later received a settlement, according to several former employees.

It also was not a secret to those harmed — directly or indirectly — by Weinstein’s actions. Or to those who knew them well. For them, this “open secret” wasn’t one they wanted to keep, but one they had no way of revealing. As the actress Ashley Judd said, “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”

It’s been beyond time for a long time, so what finally made it possible for this open secret to get aired? Rebecca Traister addresses this: “Why the Harvey Weinstein Sexual-Harassment Allegations Didn’t Come Out Until Now.” Traister recounts a 2000 incident in which Weinstein erupted in angry violence, publicly, in front of all the cameras gathered for a gala publicity party:

Such was the power of Harvey Weinstein in 2000 that despite the dozens of camera flashes that went off on that sidewalk that night, capturing the sight of an enormously famous film executive trying to pound in the head of a young newspaper reporter, I have never once seen a photo. Back then, Harvey could spin — or suppress — anything; there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or as screenwriters, or for his magazine.

… Weinstein didn’t just exert physical power. He also employed legal and professional and economic power. He supposedly had every employee sign elaborate, binding nondisclosure agreements. He gave jobs to people who might otherwise work to bring him down, and gave gobs of money to other powerful people, who knows how much, but perhaps just enough to keep them from listening to ugly rumors that might circulate among young people, among less powerful people. For decades, the reporters who tried to tell the story of Harvey Weinstein butted up against the same wall of sheer force and immovable power that was leveraged against those ambitious actors, the vulnerable assistants, the executives whose careers, salaries, and reputations were in his hands.

All of that “legal and professional and economic power” was enough, 15 years ago, to keep the open secret of Weinstein’s vile treatment of women an openly kept secret. But, as Traister writes:

Something has changed. Sources have gone on the record. It’s worth it to wonder why. Perhaps because of shifts in how we understand these kinds of abuses. Recent years have seen scores of women, finding strength and some kind of power in numbers, come forward and tell their stories about Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump. In all of those cases, as in this case, the history of allegations has been an almost wholly open secret, sometimes even having been reported in major outlets, and yet somehow ignored, allowed to pass, unconsidered.

But now our consciousness has been raised. And while repercussions have been mixed — Cosby is set to go to trial again in April; Ailes and O’Reilly lost powerful jobs but walked away with millions; Donald Trump was elected president — it is in part the fact that we have had a public conversation that has helped those for whom telling their stories seemed impossible for so long suddenly feel that speaking out might be within their reach.

That is surely one part of the story. But I don’t think it’s the whole story.

This alone, Traister says, isn’t enough to explain what has changed. Part of the explanation, she argues, is that Harvey Weinstein no longer wields the same level of power he once did:

It’s hard not to consider the circumstances, the years, the risks, and the work put in by so many to convince so many others to be able to come forward, and the fact that perhaps only a weakening of Weinstein’s grip permitted his expensive self-crafted armor to finally be pierced.

I think she’s right. And I suspect what she says here also applies to the “open secrets” involved in that other story from this weekend about something “everybody knows.” So let’s come back to that in a bit.

class warfare

Previous Post

October 9, 2017

Fundamentalism is Not Conservatism (Biblically or Constitutionally)

Next Post

October 10, 2017 Everybody knows that the captain lied

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

An entire city of 120,000 people repented, yet I was angry when God relented from judgment. Why was I displeased?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Because my prophecy failed Because they were enemies Because God showed mercy Because I looked foolish