Yes, the bombshell New York Times story only dropped yesterday, but you'd think that America's Pope and his merry band of late night comics who pelted Donald Trump, Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly over allegations of rampant sexual harassment would want to signal their horror at the exploitation of women by a rich, powerful man. Plus, there's plenty of Weinstein-related material now available to whip up some biting comedy, too, if they're still interested in that sort of thing. Some curious viewers tuned in last night to see how each major host would handle and skewer the ignominious fall of one of the most influential (and ostentatiously liberal) men in show biz. Crickets:
Late-night hosts have called out allegations against Ailes, Trump, O'Reilly. When it comes to Weinstein? Silence https://t.co/TXLjJOpq5M
— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) October 6, 2017
While the choir of liberal-leaning late-night hosts has gleefully teed off on accused sexual predators of the conservative persuasion, on Thursday night, they chose to steer clear of the sexual-harassment/assault allegations against one of their own: Hollywood power-liberal Harvey Weinstein. Now, granted, The New York Times’ eye-opening Weinstein exposé, alleging “decades of sexual-harassment allegations”—including “at least eight settlements with women”—dropped at around 2 p.m. ET Thursday, giving late-night hosts only a few hours to prepare material on the story (late-night shows typically tape between 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET), although those same shows have regularly provided same-day jokes on Trump news that’s broken well after 2 p.m...Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, James Corden, and Stephen Colbert all seemingly passed on the Weinstein news, both in their monologues and interviews with movie-star guests.
Perhaps -- under some outside pressure, and having taken the temperature of the situation within elite Hollywood circles -- they'll pounce tonight. Regardless, now that Weinstein's sordid practices are out in the open, people are coming out of the woodwork to refer to the allegations as one of the "worst kept secrets" in the industry. Many people apparently knew full well that he was a creep, and that treated women this way, for decades. Yet he was feted, awarded, and applauded in those same glamorous cliques because he could make and break careers. Plus, he was a cash cow for progressive politicians; his big money bought him lots of access with Team Obama (who aggressively pursued the "war on women" line of attack against Republicans):
Recommended
Harvey Weinstein’s visits to the Obama White House -> pic.twitter.com/6aOd1zqpmd
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) October 5, 2017
Weinstein bundled $650k for Obama, which seems to have bought him 13 White House visits. via @emilyjashinsky https://t.co/uqahyFC6yu
— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) October 6, 2017
Did the lefty politicians who were delighted to take his cash know about his...methods? Will they send his money back? And why, beyond craven self-interest and ideological solidarity, didn't anyone inside the bubble blow the whistle on someone whose conduct was extremely similar to that of men from whom they (understandably) recoiled in disgust and loudly denounced? Good question:
Curious how many entertainers who spoke out against Trump, post-Access Hollywood tape, will speak up about thishttps://t.co/ppGB3fSXoI
— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) October 5, 2017
Many of the replies to this Times reporter's tweet are from outraged liberals yelling about how a movie producer isn't the same as a president. That's obviously true, but are politicians the only people worthy of scrutiny, and whose abusive conduct is newsworthy? How many of those whining at Burns today would agree that O'Reilly or Ailes should have gotten a pass? Also, how many of them eagerly voted for Bill Clinton? One last question: What did Kimmel et al know, and then did they know it? Considering that Kimmel's whole job -- aside from lecturing and shaming Americans about politics, and sometimes making jokes -- is gabbing with celebrities, it seems somewhat likely that he'd at least have heard whispers over the years. As the country's self-appointed moral compass, did he have any obligation to help drain his own swamp as he hands down political pronouncements from his enlightened perch? Or would rocking that particular boat have risked alienating Weinstein, and complicating his own career? (He's done bits with Weinstein on his show). If that's the case, it's a good thing he's not a conservative political figure, or Jimmy Kimmel might have some very harsh things to say about him in his next clapter-filled monologue. Oh well. I'll leave you with Jim in his comfort zone:
Dear crazies: it is fascinating that 500 innocent people get shot and your anger is directed at me. Think about that https://t.co/TTMxEcjdbZ
— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) October 6, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member