Ronan Farrow: ‘I was threatened with a lawsuit personally by Mr. Weinstein’

Reemtsma Liberty Award at Hotel de Rome

You know how I can barely watch cable news in the evening anymore? I go through phases where – in Trump’s America – I just can’t watch the daily/nightly onslaught of Trump bulls–t anymore. But after all of the increasingly vile revelations about Harvey Weinstein yesterday, I actually tuned in to All In with Chris Hayes and The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. I was hoping to sort of disconnect from my work-life. I was surprised to find that both Hayes and Maddow devoted large chunks of their shows to Weinstein. The story is a confluence of politics, power, Hollywood, media, women’s issues and more. So, basically, it was not the escape I was hoping for.

Maddow had an exclusive interview with Ronan Farrow on her show. Ronan spent the better part of a year working on the article which would eventually be published by the New Yorker yesterday. I finally finished reading the New Yorker piece (a few hours after I wrote about it) and it is clear that Ronan took the time to build relationships (journalist-to-subject) with the women who agreed to go on the record about the abuses and assaults. Farrow also spoke to more than a dozen current and former employees of The Weinstein Company, many of whom knew or suspected that Weinstein was abusing young women. Since Farrow was working on this piece for nearly a year, that gave a lot of people a lot of time, in both good and bad ways. Harvey knew that Ronan Farrow was digging around and interviewing people. And Harvey tried to shut it down, predictably.

Ronan Farrow told Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that he was threatened personally with a lawsuit by Harvey Weinstein while reporting on what turned out to be a New Yorker feature.

“In the course of this reporting, I was threatened with a lawsuit personally by Mr. Weinstein,” Farrow said on MSNBC. In anticipation of the story, Weinstein had enlisted a crisis management team and several attorneys, including lawyer Lisa Bloom, who resigned from the film mogul’s team on Saturday. When Maddow asked why Farrow’s feature ended up at The New Yorker rather than at NBC, where he is employed as a correspondent, he replied, “You would have to ask NBC and NBC executives about the details. I’m not going to comment on any news organization’s story that they did or did not run.”

He added: “I will say that over many years, many news organizations have circled this story and faced a great deal of pressure in doing so.”

Farrow had said that he worked for 10 months to investigate claims of harassment and assault against Weinstein. His report, published Tuesday in The New Yorker, included on-the-record recollections by actress Asia Argento and model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez. It included audio of Weinstein admitting to groping Gutierrez.

“I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier, and immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that, and it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC,” Farrow recalled.

[From THR]

I’m not as interested in the insider-y media aspect to this story, because I think it’s pretty clear that many, many media outlets had bits and pieces of the larger Weinstein narrative over the years and none of them did much about it. The New York Times, the New Yorker, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and all of the trade papers likely killed critical Weinstein stories at various points in the past 25 years, at least that’s what I believe. The media side to this is only interesting to me because it’s a reflection of what NY Mag’s Rebecca Traister said from the beginning: that this story could only come out now because Harvey Weinstein’s power has been diminished. Even huge media outlets were scared of running critical stories of Weinstein in the ‘90s and throughout the 00s because of his power, because of the fear of lawsuits, because of his octopus-like reach, and because he would pull his advertising money.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

106 Responses to “Ronan Farrow: ‘I was threatened with a lawsuit personally by Mr. Weinstein’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mia4s says:

    I think I need to subscribe to the NewYorker and the NY Times now. Hopefully this is just the start.

    • Kitten says:

      I’ve had a subscription to The New Yorker for as long as I can remember. I can tell you that is 100% worth it not only for the long articles which are the kind that you can really sink your teeth into, but for the fictional excerpts as well as the brilliant magazine covers, a number of which I have hanging on my fridge.

      I always say that The New Yorker makes me smarter.

      • K says:

        The New Yorker is head and shoulders above any other journal I’ve come across in so, so many ways.

      • Esmom says:

        Agreed, Kitten. I read my New Yorker from cover to cover almost every week. So much to dive into.

      • Asiyah says:

        Thanks for the recommendation, Kitten!

      • jasp0810 says:

        Yep, if there’s one magazine worth subscribing to, it’s the New Yorker. My family subscribed to it when I was a child and I credit it with opening up my worldview and, really, teaching me how to write.

        I read just about every issue cover to cover too and find the quality of the reporting consistently top notch. I read about things I wouldn’t have thought to otherwise. I think the subscription fee is a bargain for the quality.

      • SK says:

        The New Yorker is incredible, absolutely unparalleled journalism. I am from New Zealand and enjoy my subscription so much. Especially in these dark times it’s wonderful

      • tw says:

        I’m a New Yorker subscriber and agree it is unparalleled journalism. If the Trump/Azerbaijan/Iran Revolutionary Guard article would have received a fraction of the cable news air time as Trump’s hideous rallies, we would not be living this nightmare right now.

      • funfactor says:

        And don’t forget the superb cartoons! I have a collection of the choicest ones from as far back as the 40′s. Friends of my parents used New Yorker covers as wallpaper for their sophisticated bar alcove. It looked sensational!

      • TheOriginalMe says:

        The New Yorker has no peer in the English-language press. I love the fiction installments, the reviews and the in depth stories on Isis to olive oil production to facial transplants to characters like Assange, etc. I love Shouts & Mumurs too.
        I pay for The New Yorker, The NY Times, NPR, PBS… Gotta support the Fourth Estate! Without investigative journalism, we are done as a society.

    • minx says:

      I also have an online subscription to the Washington Post, it’s only $9.95 a month. They have done some great reporting this year.

      • Handwoven says:

        The WaPo has been brilliant for the last 12 months. Definitely worth the money.
        My subscriptions right now are the WaPo, NYT, and the New Yorker even though I’m in the UK. I don’t rate any of the papers here at all…

      • bros says:

        add to this Vanity Fair. everything except the profiles on the cover make me smarter and are always well written. People who have amazon prime can get free WaPo, did you know that? best hidden gem.

      • Maya says:

        If you have an amazon account then Washington Post is free.

      • TheOriginalMe says:

        Minx, agree totally! Wapo has been impressive ever since Martin Baron took over as Editor-in-Chief.

    • flan says:

      I don’t even live in the US, but buy the NYT quite often.

      There are many good articles in it about stories all over the world, not just in the West.

    • jasp0810 says:

      You do. Please – they are two amazing publication, and they are also suffering from the rise of the digital age. I’m a loyal print subscriber to both and have been so for many years. You won’t be disappointed.

    • isabelle says:

      NYT is worth every penny and they have good deals for new subscribers.

    • Nibbi says:

      Seriously. We need in-depth, vetted, careful (in the good, fact-based sense), courageous, power-structure-defying journalism in America today perhaps more than ever. These ppl are down there in the trenches

    • Carrie1 says:

      I did for a while but their errors are as egregious and the stories and reporting were better elsewhere. That’s been my experience and only offer it as that.

      Recently subbed to Paris Review and London Review and both have been better for stories. News is still Washington Post or the Hill Times or Independent for breaking news, depth, better coverage. Less pro trump, more actual news.

      All this said, I’m glad someone published this, don’t really care who did finally. Ronan Farrow gets all my thanks on breaking this.

  2. EOA says:

    IMO, this is a case where Ronan Farrow could not be intimidated because of who he is and his family’s history. He must have been thinking, “oh, sure, Harvey, I am so afraid of you, when my ‘father’ has spent years gaslighting my sister about her abuse.” He really was the perfect person to pursue this story and good on him for his persistence.

    • Birdix says:

      So after 10 months, how’d he get scooped by the NYT by a week?

      • EOA says:

        It’s clear both publications were circling the story for a while plus different media outlets have different editing processes and legal standards. Plus, media outlets usually know when a competitor is chasing a similar story, so I suspect that the Times pushed up publication.

        But with a story like this, it’s not like it really matters who was the first to hit publish because both stories help to build the larger narrative.

      • TQB says:

        To me it seems like the fact that two competing publications were actually going to go to press after all this time was probably why it finally came out. Strength in numbers.

      • KB says:

        The NYT story was less damning and they probably knew it so they scrambled to release it sooner.

      • K says:

        They were really different stories, yeah. The Times soft-entered the subject with a news story, then Farrow delivered the killer punch with an investigative feature.

      • Nibbi says:

        I don’t know that he actually got ‘scooped’ by the NYT.
        The two stories corroborated each other and strengthened the case.
        I almost wonder if it was coordinated, in fact.
        NYT was faithful to its format, the NYer to theirs.
        To be frank I’m glad we had the build-up from the already-gross stuff recounted in the NYT piece to the “oh my god it’s so much horribly worse than i thought” awfulness that the NYer exposed in detail. Kind of a double-whammy; it’s good we had a couple days to digest the first round of stuff.

    • Mia4s says:

      He actually could have been the worst person to pursue this but he handled it perfectly, with no mentions whatsoever of his family conflict and history. One mention and it’s potentially twisted as “part of his personal vendetta against a man who was thoroughly investigated during a very bitter relationship split and never charged with any wrongdoing”….which is all true. You can see it right? His family history had to be treated as entirely irrelevant or it could have been used to distract. But he didn’t give them the opening. Fantastic journalism.

      • Snazzy says:

        I read your comment after I posted me. Agree with you as well. He handled this wonderfully.

      • EOA says:

        Oh sure. I think he was right not to mention his own history. I just think that because of his family, he was unlikely to wilt in the face of threatened law suits.

      • bros says:

        I heard an interview with him on NPR yesterday and the interviewer asked the question about this story only being possible now because of HW’s waning influence and Ronan totally agreed that was the case.

        What about HW’s power was waning? I wish someone would give the whole story structurally about how his influence was drying up, like what forces were at work etc., companies being bought out etc. I want the structure/backstory.

      • KB says:

        @bros His company has been in financial trouble for a while now. And they just don’t win awards like they used to. Last year they could only put money into the campaign for Lion, it won nothing. The year before it was Carol which didn’t get a best picture nom and won nothing. The year before that it was The Imitation Game which won adapted screenplay. The year before that it was Philomena which won nothing. This year they had Wind River which wasn’t going to win anything even before this story broke.

      • annaloo. says:

        (On that note, while people are moved to subscribe to the NYT and the New Yorker, be sure to support your member NPR stations too for their journalism as well!)

      • Borgqueen says:

        In respect to Woody Allen, when people say he was never charged with wrondoing, actually, I read the decision of the judge when Farrow sued Allen for custody of the kids. There were many instances of impropriate behavior by Woody with ths kids. Lest us not forget that Mia found nude pics of her 18 yr Soon Yee at Woody’s apt. DO you REALLY think Woody waited till she was 18 to start having a sexual relationship. You abuse one kid, you probably abused others.

      • holly hobby says:

        The downfall of power is because he has not had an “acclaimed” hit movie in awhile as someone here pointed out. It is also that Harvey was a jerk to a lot of people in the past. We’re talking about temper tantrums and verbal abuse (not the sexual harassment scandal). I’m sure he made a lot of enemies who were biding their time before he is vulnerable. Then they went in on him.

    • Snazzy says:

      Yes! I feel like he really is the right person for this.

    • Nicole says:

      Agreed. I think because he’s seen how Hollywood treated the op ed his sister wrote he was the perfect guy for this.
      I knew he would be the perfect guy to handle this with care. Not just the story but the victims.
      And NYT didn’t really scoop him. His story was way more in depth and detailed

    • courtney says:


  3. Who ARE these people? says:

    So women were sacrificed on the altar of money, the way Clinton’s candidacy was last year. MSM hope you are proud of your choices.

  4. Annabelle Bronstein says:

    People are so critical of these media outlets for killing the story but the real problem is that no one wanted to be on the record against Harvey Weinstein. Without reportable sources (they need at least two reliable on the record sources) they could NOT print it. I’m glad we have journalistic integrity in this country.

    • Zip says:

      I don’t know. Printing it without on-the-record sources could have given women the strength to come forward. Someone has to make the first step.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        A real journalist cannot print anything that’s off the record. That’s the whole point.

      • kacy says:

        They can have anonymous sources that have been verified by the fact checked team.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @kacy anonymous sources still have to be on the record in order for the reporter to be able to publish it. Talking to a reporter off the record means it cannot be printed, that’s different than an anonymous source. Off the record means off the record.

      • Mazzie says:

        Can’t do that. Sources can be anonymous but everything has to be on record. A journalist opens themselves and their publication to lawsuits otherwise.

  5. Margo S. says:

    I’ve always been a fan of Ronan. What a handsome fella to boot.

    I bet the head of nbc is bff’s with Weinstein or some sh!t and that’s why they didn’t want the story.

    • Esmom says:

      He’s so intelligent and charming, reminds me a bit of Anderson Cooper who also could have lived a life of privilege and relative ease but instead chose to do important, meaningful, difficult work. Unlike the Trump offspring.

      • Kitten says:

        Ronan is just a beautiful guy…he shares that same ethereal beauty that Mia has always possessed.

        And he dates Jon Lovett. Cutest. Couple. EVER.

      • Alexandria says:

        Superficial note: is he wearing makeup? His skin looks fab and luminous.

      • Esmom says:

        Kitten, I know, they are my favorite couple for sure.

        Well, I saw the Pod boys on Monday night and I surprised myself by tearing up a little when they came out on stage. Love, love, love them.

      • tealily says:

        I didn’t know he dated Jon Lovett! <3

      • Kitten says:

        @ Esmom-I’m so freaking jealous that you got to see them! I would totally tear up, too.

        I just got my Friend of the Pod t-shirt on Tuesday so I’m ready for when those bums finally come to their hometown ./.

      • Moon Beam says:

        Obama’s daughters are still young enough to change their minds about their career. Donny, Eric and Ivanka work in daddy’s business because he gave them jobs. And Ivanka selling crappy fashion is sooooo respectable. As is Don Jr. being a vulgar idiotic attack dog on twitter for his daddy.

    • H says:

      Yes Ronan was very articulate last night and side stepped why NBC wouldn’t publish the piece and why he went to the New Yorker (I read that as Weinstein had ‘friends’ at NBC kill the story). He also stated another actress went on the record in January about Harvey raping her and she pulled out of the article as Harvey’s legal team came after her. She was terrified so he removed her to protect her. Ronan is a class act.

      • Christin says:

        He made it clear that the network knew about the story and didn’t take it. Smart guy, as his *speaking tone* revealed as much as what he actually said. They passed on it, and New Yorker picked it up.

      • Triple Cardinal says:

        I wonder if Ronan’s going with the New Yorker instead of NBC was due to his failed afternoon program at MSNBC. I’m not damning, but I’m curious if there’s a connection between the two.

    • kNY says:

      Clearly genetics worked in his favor. It’s like Mia’s DNA vetoed Woody’s.

      • Natalia says:

        You mean Frank’s DNA competed with Mia’s! No shaming here. He’s awesome.

      • babykitten says:

        Ronan looks just like Mia’s father, John Farrow. She happened to have married a man who looked very much like her father – doesn’t mean Frank is his father.

    • Evie says:

      And notice SNL which pillories just about every politician and big name, said nary a word about Harvey Weinstein on last week’s show. It will be interesting to see if SNL ignores it again this week in the wake of all the revelations that are piling on…

      • pwal says:

        @Evie…@Evie… apparently you didn’t hear about Lorne Michaels’explanation for not broaching the scandal. He said It’s a New York thing.

        It’s a New York thing to not take down a problematic public figure? Since fcuking when?!

      • Esmom says:

        Please. They’re a comedy show and it’s their prerogative to satirize whomever/whatever they want. Just because Trump is in their crosshairs doesn’t make them complicit with Weinstein.

      • Moon Beam says:

        He said it’s a New York thing as in a wider audience wouldn’t know who Harvey Weinstein was and wouldn’t get the sketch. Not defending Lorne here, but creepy Don Jr. is running with this HW story on twitter and tried to spin it as Lorne wouldn’t go after Weinstein because “it’s a New York thing” as in Harvey is from NYC so he wouldn’t go after him, but daddy Trump is also from NYC and gets made fun of all the time. Donny is THAT stupid. I just wanted to clear up Lorne’s statement, even though I don’t agree with him and think it’s a cop out.

      • Nibbi says:

        Legit. Lorne Michael’s “it’s a NY thing” … what does that even mean?
        HW habitually abused women in NY London Cannes LA ….
        and people across Europe, for example, are reading about this story… It’s huge
        Kinda wonder who’s got Lorne Michaels’ number there

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        Wankstain (thanks detritus) isn’t famous. He’s only known in the industry. Trump is the president.

  6. happyoften says:

    I bet he did. Bet he was surprised when it didn’t work.

    • K says:

      His statement in the wake of the NYT seemed genuinely indignant that it didn’t work. After years of everyone kowtowing when you tell them to, finally being told no seemed to him like this massive injustice. He seemed to think he’d get public sympathy because he wasn’t allowed to dictate the terms of the story – that people would think that terribly unfair on the poor sexual predator.

      • StormsMama says:


        Yes for the first time he couldn’t control and dictate the narrative.

        I also think Twitter – despite its faults- gave someone like Rose McGowan a platform once impossible under Harvey’s reign of terror. He used to hold all the keys to the city with the press and film industry. But there are wider audiences and avenues now.
        And thanks to her relentless and brave tweeting people started murmuring louder.

        While I’m sure his power was waining recently, and perhaps his brother was ready to admit he was a liability, I also think the fact that (someone he had cruelly discarded like) Rose continued to shout via Twitter about her rapist made a difference. The playing field changed and she found a place where he could not silence her. She is a fucking hero in my mind. I am so proud of her and emotional about it.

  7. MousyB says:

    Alex Gibney gave an amazing interview about Harvey (he’s currently working on a Roger Alies doc). Men like Harvey in power are not the exception – they are the norm. And they protect each other at all costs. Also, I highly doubt Ronan didnt have enough evidence in the version of the article he showed to NBC. And the fact that this story couldnt come out until Harvey was not at peak power/on the decline speaks volumes.

    In Gibney’s interview, he basically said thats pretty much the only way these people go down. On the decline juuust enough for people to dare to speak out, then its like a domino effect and you have enough hard evidence. Everyone benefited from Harvey being in power, once he wasnt, people started talking.

    • TQB says:

      My fear is that all these men will take the opportunity to let the (deserved) shitstorm pile onto Harvey and then go right back to being just as bad or worse.

  8. Alix says:

    So basically, people and/or media outlets have wanted to do the right thing for years, but it might have cost them too much money/business? Well, hell, what’s a few more attempted rapes, then… gross.

    • holly hobby says:

      From what I understand, HW at his peak could ruin someone financially and their reputation. It’s brave to speak out but at what cost? People wait for the bully to be vulnerable before they start speaking out.

  9. Neelyo says:

    I’m glad the story came out, but I didn’t think it was a well written piece. All of the facts were laid out well but it read like a high school paper.

    • Christin says:

      My take on it was that he was careful to let it be the individual accounts.

      Going back to my journalism studies, I think he was minimizing the legal risk by simply capturing the allegations / stories from the alleged victims’ perspective. No editorializing or fluffing those accounts, which spoke volumes “as is”.

  10. DiligentDiva says:

    I feel like this was just a start for Ronan. Who wants to bet he goes after that nasty father/brother in law of his next? I heard rumors the reason he was so aggressive against Weinstein was because of his involvement in Woody Allen movies. I wouldn’t be shocked if Ronan’s attempting to stop his father from working somehow. Keep it up Ronan we, the sane part of humanity, are behind you.

    • Mia4s says:

      That’s very doubtful. Unless there was another accusation, the Allen story has run its course. He had one accusation, it was investigated, no charges, that’s it. Statute of limitations ran out (not to mention speaking as a lawyer, the press conference where the DA pulled the “yeah I could have charged him but I’m not going to” was grossly prejudicial and boarderline insane). The story has been around for over two decades and reconsidered a dozen times without a single other accusation? There’s nowhere to go.

      I think because of that he may be looking to work to bring to light what he can, not obsess on what he can’t. That’s admirable.

  11. Iknowwhatboyslike says:

    Honest question for clarification:

    Can someone please explain to me how has Harvey’s power waned to the point where stories that could have been reported long ago is now being reported? What happened? I hear rumblings that his brother is the one who dropped the dime on him. Then there was the horrible essay about Tulip Fever? What changed so suddenly? His girl Alicia won an Oscar just last year.

    • cr says:

      Alicia’s not ‘his girl’, the Danish Girl wasn’t a Weinstein production.
      And TWC hasn’t been that successful for awhile, so his power has been waning for some time.

      • Iknowwhatboyslike says:

        Thank you for the clarification. I thought the Danish Girl was a weinstein production. Now, I know. I thought it was him who pushed for her to be in the supporting actress category and not best actress.

    • Mia4s says:

      He wasn’t involved in the Danish Girl. At all. Not as a producer or anything else. Whatever you may think of that Oscar win (I’m not a fan and it was category fraud) it had nothing to do with him. It’s quite gross of you to say that.

      And as for the rest of it. The independent films that were his bread and butter are now dominated by other companies. Oldest story in the book, he’s losing money.

      • Iknowwhatboyslike says:

        Thank you for the clarification. My fault. I remembered the talk about the category and could have sworn his name was involved. I didn’t intend to be “gross.” I was really curious about how you can go from being who he was and now. It was a sincere question.

      • Mia4s says:

        No problem. It’s just a bit of a sensitive topic as the past few days have been a lot of “well we know how she got her Oscar. *wink* *wink*”.

        To expand a bit it really is a case of him losing a lot of financial influence. Companies like Annapurna, A24, and even Netflix have provided unprecedented competition. A lot of independents go to Amazon or Netflix. Cash flow trouble too. The company keeps picking one project to push for Oscars and kind of dumps the rest. They can’t afford to support multiple projects, which means even more pissed off actors and producers. They’ve let staff go. They’re just not a good bet anymore. So the stage was primed for a take down.

      • cr says:

        @Iknowwhatboyslike: using the phrase ‘his girl’ is similar in tone/phrasing to other posters who’ve said over the years that Alicia slept her way to the top. Hence the ‘gross’ comment, I’m presuming.

      • Iknowwhatboyslike says:

        cr & Mia4s: You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “his girl”, I’m not here for that nonsense and I see how those words could have been interpreted as being derogatory. from your explanation, I guess it makes sense why he was so desperate for Tulip Fever to make it. I read his essay in Deadline and was floored by the desperation in it.

    • jetlagged says:

      His power has been waning for a while. As others have stated, for a long while the Weinsteins were the only power players in the indie drama niche. Now there is a lot of competition in that area. Once upon a time, their company Miramax also scored a lot of Oscar wins against larger, more studio-driven films, but after Weinstein left Miramax and founded The Weinstein Company, his track record hasn’t been so great. I think he has been trading on his reputation and past success for the better part of a decade, and people finally noticed he wasn’t as all-powerful as he used to be.

    • Ellen pt says:

      Basically, the movie industry changed so much that mid-budget films were getting squeezed out by blockbusters like those produced by big studios. It didn’t help that he was dropped by Disney after that Miramax fiasco. The Weinstein Co was never as powerful as Miramax was.

      Essentially, Iron man rose and the power of Harvey Weinstein declined.

  12. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    This is definitely historic, and I am so so thankful. As a woman, I have too many stories of men in the workplace affecting me and women I’ve worked with. I’ve always been an annoying loud voice protecting me and my work mates because not every woman felt they could or were scared or for whatever reason they simply ‘couldn’t.’ The culture has always been around, and I’ve been almost giddy these past few years with Cosby, Ailes, etc. I actually took the time to discuss these latest news cycles with my son driving him to school this morning lol. But not the same old, “No means no” conversations we’ve had before. But, “If you ever, EVER, see something or know something that is happening in your orbit, you MUST make it right. Whatever it takes, we have to protect those we can protect and never be afraid to be the one who stands alone.

  13. L84Tea says:

    I’m seriously loving Ronan Farrow and how he keeps sticking up for women. He just seems like such a solid, good person.

  14. Boston Green Eyes says:

    I think that Ronan was very brave going with this story – sort of a David and Goliath situation. I realize that he *is* Hollywood royalty what with his mother being Mia Farrow and his grandmother being Maureen O’Sullivan – never mind the Woody Allen/Frank Sinatra connection so I thought that maybe that brought a sense of fearlessness. But then Gwyneth is also “Hollywood royalty” and she never came out about it – even when her godfather is Steven Spielberg.

    And what a handsome man! I googled him because I knew that Mia and Woody’s bio son was named Satchel and forgot that Ronan had changed his name when all that sh–t happened with his sister. Anyway, in one picture of him I couldn’t stop being amazed at how much he looks like “Ol’ Blue Eyes” when Frank was young. Was that rumor about being Frank’s son ever disproved? I just can’t see any of Woody’s creepy squishy-ness in Ronan’s features.

    • L84Tea says:

      I’m absolutely 100% convinced he is Frank’s son. Those genes don’t lie.

      • Evie says:

        Actually, Ronan is a ringer for his maternal grandfather John Farrow who was a writer and director and won an Academy Award in 1957 for Best Screenplay for Around the World in 80 Days.

      • L84Tea says:

        Sorry, I still see Frank.

      • Ange says:

        I actually think as he gets older he looks less like Frank and skews more and more Farrow. I thought there was a chance a few years ago but now with a bit of age I would back the Sinatra family who deny it.

    • frisbee says:

      I agree he looks like Frank but Sinatra’s daughter went on record to say he couldn’t be Ronan’s Dad because Frank had a vasectomy and it would have been impossible for him to father Ronan as a result. I have no idea how true that is.
      Edit: He even stands like Frank! 😀

    • Mia4s says:

      He’s not a biological Sinatra, according to Sinatra’ own family, and it’s easy to see where his looks come from, just Google old photos of Mia. It’s not a big mystery.

    • Christin says:

      Guess I’m the minority, but I only see Mia and Frank, and not a single trace (thankfully) of WA.

    • Molly says:

      I’m 100% convinced he’s Frank’s son. Vasectomies can fail.

  15. Miss S says:

    “He owns you guys, all of you,” bitches one West Coast film executive. “All media is controlled out of New York, and he is the king. He has the kind of Teflon none of us can understand.”

    from here (2001) :

    We shouldn’t minimize Harvey’s power and this article I’m sharing gives us a good picture of his media connections, how he “bought” journalists, how he was able to make “stuff” disappear and how visionary he was at doing business. Unless the ones going after him had the kind of proof that it’s impossible to twist he would destroy them. Hell, we have the president talking abt grabbing women’s parts and he was still elected!

  16. cee says:

    Mia Farrow must be the proudest mother in the USA right now.
    Good on Ronan for standing his ground. Even though he has name recognition and is already a journalist and former WH-employee, he could have lost under Weinstein’s legal machine. He still chose to go forward.

    Now, I hope one day he takes down Polanski and his own father.

  17. babykitten says:

    I really like Ronan. I’m glad he’s stopped wearing the baby blue contacts to bait the Frank Sinatra question; It gives him more credibility. Hopefully he’s moved on. Unless he’s willing to demand a DNA test with Sinatra’s children, it’s a non-topic. None of us would want Woody Allen as a father, but Mia Farrow made the decision to have a child with him. Simply disavow Woody – which he has – and get on with it (which he has).

  18. xena says:

    Just wanted to give a thumbs up for Ronan Farrow and his careful and persistent work.
    And I have to say, he is one of the first who made me realise with his public support of his sister, that one does not have to silently grip one’s teeth about other people enabling an abuser. When I read about it I realised how much I miss this sort of support form my father and brother. As well as the articles and comments on this site. It is not easy to create supportive environments for victims of abuse that make me feel safe and this place here has become one of them for me.

  19. holly hobby says:

    I did read Ronan’s article and it was insightful and well written. I saw parts of the Maddow interview as well. He comes across well. I’m glad he did this story and it brought HW down.

  20. KP says:

    I want to know what the heck is going on with Lisa Bloom being on this team and now leaving?

  21. Hella says:

    Wow, Ronan is so beautiful. He’s like a lovely, creamy angel dropping truth bombs from his rose-bud lips. Sigh.
    Oh, and Weinstein is a turd on the devil’s shoe.