I can't stress enough how fundamental Maureen Orth's pieces are to the supporters of the Farrow camp. It's remarkable that these two articles (and the supplement) are taken as literally true because they clearly advocate for Farrow's account of the events.
Perhaps we're seeing another spasm of the death of the mass media. I've mentioned before that the bias is more pronounced than ever. As the authority of the major outlets diminishes, the more fervently they put forth their perspective. The mass media has become histrionic, desperately screeching against alternative outlets putting forth alternative views.
Still, for many the major outlets continue to be Disseminators of Truth. If it's on ABC News, or from the Associated Press, or in the pages of Vanity Fair, then it must be accurate. The audience that sees its views parroted in the mass media is now just as histrionic in asserting their perspective's authority.
I've always enjoyed VF when I've read it. Graydon Carter has taken a bit of his old SPY attitude into the magazine--a healthy suspicion of the rich and powerful and an eye for their grubby peccadilloes. That doesn't mean that I take it as gospel truth.
In addition to true crime books, I'm also a fan of unauthorized biographies in the style of Kitty Kelly. I suspect that the MO in writing these is to find every disgruntled person who has something bad to say about the subject and package all their accusations.
Remember, journalism doesn't have to be true, it just has to be sourced.
My rule of thumb when reading these books is this: I consider about half of the allegations true and gauge the subject that way. Usually, it's most useful to take the worst offenses out of the equation. Does the subject still look terrible? Does their behavior over the years, taken together, really amount to the horrible monster depicted the book?
In other words, clear away the smoke to see how big the fire is. In His Way, Kelly details a large number of incidents where Frank Sinatra either attacked or threatened to attack someone in a restaurant. I imagine that being on Frank's bad side and seeing him in a semi-public place was probably bad news. Whether he actually struck so-and-so at such-and-such time isn't that important.
I take the same tack when considering profile journalism. Article X says that Joe Blow is a wife beater, a degenerate gambler and a drug addict. Article Y says that he's practically a saint. Now's the time to sit back and wait. Will there be smoke for the good image or the bad? If the guy's a bum, it's only a matter of time before his colors show.
So, thinking in those terms, we've seen a lot of bad smoke around Woody Allen. Since everyone is convinced of whatever they're convinced of, it's time to see where the smoke is coming from. Besides Dylan Farrow's open letter, the smoke is coming from only three sources. And all of them have Maureen Orth's name on them.
Speaking of smoke, it might be wise to mention another red pill concept, the feminine drama generator. We see it in the general discussion of Allen and Farrow and we see hints of it in Orth's pieces.
Feminine drama generation is fanning the flames. Make a problem bigger and more outrageous. Take the mean girl process, where a rumor is repeated and embellished until it's a Known Fact. By the time the population has heard the rumor, it doesn't matter whether it started with a kernel of truth or not. It has snowballed.
Orth's articles have more than a whiff of this dynamic. Much of what she reports is hearsay, things Farrow told her friends that they did not see. It's not hard to imagine Farrow's circle of friends repeating Allen's little outrages that she dropped into the conversation. Once group animosity is established, it's not hard to build on those beliefs and create an us-versus-him environment.
Female aggression is typically social, and we see this in the resurgence of accusations against Allen. Not only is all analysis of the claims shouted down, it's not uncommon to see people raising questions be called pedophiles themselves. We all agree he did it, so any attempt to quiet the roar must be saying that what he did is okay, right?
What all the screaming does is mask the issues at hand. It bullies dissenters into silence. That's a problem whether the accusations are true or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment