Imagine you’re a journalist, you get a call from Harvey Weinstein, of all people, the embattled Hollywood tycoon facing life in prison for multiple charges of rape and sexual assault and he allegedly says, “I’ve got a world exclusive for you, are you interested?”
Then you carefully write up an article, knowing you’re sitting on dynamite, presumably vet it through rigorous editors due to its sensitivity (or because you’re one of the few publications left that employ editors and can afford fact checkers) and then publish it and touting it as a “world exclusive” with the bold headline: Harvey Weinstein: ‘I offered acting jobs in exchange for sex, but so does everyone – they still do’
You’d have to be Pretty. Damn. Fucking. Sure. Every. Word. of that article was correct. But if you’re Taki Theodoracopulos of the Spectator USA, three hours later after publishing your article, that has made headlines around the world, you’re essentially recanting it, calling the exclusive more of a “social visit,” and saying ” I believe that I may have misrepresented Harvey Weinstein’s conversation with me.”
Worse, the interview was conducted a MONTH AGO. With the accusations of “fake news!” chipping away at the credibility of journalism every day, this is perhaps 2018’s biggest facepalm, at least in entertainment journalism.
Weinstein’s attorney, Ben Brafman told Variety he was present for the conversation and that Weinstein did not make the quoted remark about exchanging lead roles for sex.
“I was present for the conversation; it was not an interview, but a social meeting between old friends,” Brafman said. “Harvey and Taki did not discuss the case, nor would I allow him to. We talked about old Hollywood and the contrast to European culture, and I think Taki sees Harvey in that older light. Mr. Weinstein never said anything about trading movie roles for sexual favors. You have my word that Harvey did not say that.”
As soon as the interview was published, the 81-year-old journalist Theodoracopulos, who has called himself a “buddy” and “friend” of Weinstein, was seen as a sympathetic figure ready to carry the film mogul’s water. By his own admission in the article, Theodoracopulos “believed” Harvey Weinstein was telling the truth about words he now no longer believes he accurately captured (have you ever heard of a tape recorder?).
Weinstein’s lawyers must have reached out to him just minutes after the piece published because he’s issued his own retraction.
“After 41 years as a Spectator columnist without a single retraction, I believe that I may have misrepresented Harvey Weinstein’s conversation with me in New York last month,” Theodoracopulos said to Variety. “I[t] was my mistake. We were discussing Hollywood, and I may have misunderstood certain things about the methods of that place. I had nothing to do with the headline of my article, and I hope I have not damaged his case. [I]t was, after all, a social visit.”
So was it a world exclusive or just a casual social visit? HOW do you possibly fuck something like this up? Talk about an about-face. Sorry buddy, this is probably one retraction you should never live down. Presumably, given how quickly the journo rolled over, he was probably pressured into retracting his piece (which hasn’t been withdrawn online), but who knows, maybe he’s as terrible at his job as the disavowal of his own work suggests.
