Why We Published Harvey Weinstein

Share on Facebook Share on X Google Preferred Share to Flipboard Show additional share options Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on Reddit Share on Tumblr Share on Whats App Send an Email Print the Article Post a Comment When my interview with Harvey Weinstein was published in these pages last month, the reaction was immediate and intense. Within a day, thousands of comments flooded social media, with more pouring in to THR . The story ricocheted globally, picked up across Europe, India and beyond, reigniting debate about Weinstein’s crimes and battered legacy. In keeping with the tenor of the moment, a few responses crossed a more personal line — including texts to my cellphone that read, “We know where you live, you pedo Jew.” For many, Weinstein’s reappearance felt like a visit from an unwelcome ghost. “No one wants to hear from this monster” was a common refrain. And yet plenty of people did. Millions of readers engaged with the interview, which spent days among the most-read pieces on our site. I heard from hundreds who valued the chance to grapple with something more complicated than a slogan. Related Stories News Rosanna Arquette Writes Open Letter Responding to Harvey Weinstein's Prison Interview Claims Movies Harvey Weinstein: The Rikers Interview None of this came as a surprise. I had spent six months pursuing the interview, braved a blizzard on my way to Rikers and still woke up with a pit in my stomach on the morning it was slated to come out. I knew how combustible it would be. Its impending publication stirred skepticism — and alarm — even inside THR . In the end, I published it for two simple reasons: It was newsworthy, and it was interesting. Which, to my mind, remain the primary standards by which journalism should be judged. Weinstein is one of the most consequential figures Hollywood has produced in the past half-century — a man who reshaped independent film, dominated the Oscars and, through his downfall, helped trigger a global reckonin...