Transcripts For BBCNEWS HARDtalk 20240713

Now on bbc news, Sarah Montague talks to journalist ronan farrow, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigation of Harvey Weinstein, in hardtalk. Welcome to hardtalk. Im Sarah Montague. The journalist ronan farrow won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigation of Harvey Weinstein. His revelations about the Film Producer prompted an outpouring of rage at the way women had been treated and triggered the Metoo Movement an attempt at breaking the silence around Sexual Assault. In his new book catch and kill, hes posing difficult questions about the powerful media institutions he says tried to suppress the story. So how did the hollywood insider, the son of mia farrow and woody allen, break the story that took the shine off tinseltown . Ronan farrow, welcome to hardtalk. Good to be here. Now, many people wont be familiar with the expression catch and kill. Can you explain what it means . Catch and kill is an old term in american tabloid journalism. It refers to buying the rights to a story not to publish it, but to bury it sometimes at the behest of a powerful person. It is used both metaphorically, in the plot that unravels in this book because this book is about circles of Mutual Protection and power that buries stories in both of our cultures and also literally, because im following a trail of clues that leads from Harvey Weinstein, using the media to bury stories, all the way up to donald trump doing the same. Ok, now, you say that this is effectively what nbc did yourformer employer when you were working there and starting trying to uncover the various allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Well, what happened at nbc is, i think, metaphorically in the category of the media conspiring with adverse subjects of reporting to bury difficult stories, and theres a whole carefully fact checked body of reporting and claims from all of the working level journalists around this that, you know, this was shut down. And much of that has now been admitted to in the conversation in the wake of this book. But it is not the same catch and kill practice in the literal sense which involves the acquisition of the rights to a story in a financial transaction, and then the killing of it. Ok, now nbc would probably not i mean, they rebut a lot of the allegations that youve made about them, but why do you think, when you where there working for them and trying to follow this story and it was after a story after all, a story that they had given you and were paying you to follow, why do you think that they didnt want it told . Well, in fact, there is not that much daylight between the carefully laid out reporting in this book and what nbc and its reporters have now admitted to. Rachel maddow, one of their talents, got on air and said i have independently confirmed that this did indeed happen nbc ordered a halt to the reporting and the whole saga is laid out in this book that my producer and i a man named rich mchugh who ultimately became a whistleblower on this, went to the New York Times with this story received first orders to pause reporting and then hard orders to stop. The book looks at why nbc, as it was having secret conversations with Harvey Weinstein at least 15 that they have now admitted to, and there are transcripts and other records laid out in the book, and in which they made assurances the story would be killed was parroting arguments from his attorneys that News Organisations cannot report on secret Sexual Harassment settlements that bind victims to silence. At the same time, they were enforcing and brokering their own agreements of that very type. Ok, now, well come to what they say about this in a minute. But its curious to know im curious to know how it happened. How it was that you were because you were spending months on this story how was it that it was you were effectively being prevented from taking it any further . This escalated from what, from the beginning, was a suspicious order to put it on the backburner, focus on other things, up to a pause on reporting there was that euphemism used and then finally to a direct order to cancel interviews with rape victims. Now, nbc, we should say i mean, they said they say from their part that the story wasnt ready, that it didnt that you did not have a single victim or witness on the record, on camera, and that it contained multiple claims not supported by the underlying reporting. And i should note that their rebuttals are in this book in full. This is a very careful work of investigative reporting it is fact checked by one of the senior Fact Checkers at the new yorker and all of their responses are in there. It is not in dispute now that they ordered a stop to reporting. It is not in dispute that they were always multiple named woman in the story. Yes, but in a way, there are always stories. I mean, anyjournalist knows this. You follow something and there is a point in which you have to pull the plug. Yes. Now, and that is entirely acceptable for a News Organisation to do it. Its the reasons that they do it. Certainly. Ive done it myself. And their suggestion is that. Ive done it myself if there is not enough. Is that you didnt have the material ready to go at that stage. You can see laid out in the book very clearly what we did and didnt have. We always had multiple named women. The general counsel of the new yorker has gone on the record saying we saw the reporting that nbc sent away that concluded multiple women on the record. There was a recording of Harvey Weinstein admitting to a Sexual Assault and, indeed, to a pattern of Sexual Assaults. Now, mostjournalists who have looked at this have said that shouldve gotten on air immediately that was my producers conclusion. Um, theyre certainly entitled to anotherjudgement. What is at issue here is not this question of did we have enough . Its that they ordered us to stop. They prevented us from getting more. 0k. And this is after they promised Harvey Weinstein they would kill the story. You know that they promised Harvey Weinstein that they would. Indeed. And those quotes have not been disputed. Because you mentioned the number of phone calls that were made, and they make the point that there were at least 15 calls, but many of them were unanswered, and of those, only one was to your immediate boss, noah oppenheim. And initially, those calls were concealed and they didnt admit to that, so were seeing a steady progress in this, where theyve gone from saying, you know, ronan farrow is a terrorist and denying all of this to actually acknowledging well, maybe there were these secret settlements with harassment survivors and the company. Maybe we will let people out of them and maybe we did have these conversations. Now, their claim that. What about that particular claim that they told Harvey Weinstein they would kill the story . Yes. How do you know that . Now, there is an authors note at the front of this book that explains that every quote in the book is based on a contemporaneous record that is indisputable. And i cant say exactly who the source of is or what the record is in each conversation, but it is telling that no quote in the book has been disputed. Ill let the facts stand on their own. Ok, so lets go back to the why. Why would they do that . Why would they be prepared to kill a story for Harvey Weinstein . As they themselves said, they have been at the forefront of the frontline of exposing sexual misconduct. And they had been over many stories the usa gymnastics, silicon valley, universities, jehovahs witnesses. I mean, theres a whole long list. Well, its worth noting that that is after the outrage about the killing of this story. The journalists at nbc who are, in many cases, sources in this book have risen up in outrage about this. Many of them have gotten on air and said said we have independently confirmed the claims in this book. This is troubling. The digitaljournalists of nbc unionised in protest of this. So the the journalists at that News Organisation, who are wonderful journalists, have been unanimous in saying this is an important story and, as a result of this outrage, we need more space to pursue tough leads. The stories youre describing are part of whats happened in the wake of all of this. Ok, so why . Why did it happen, do you think . This is bigger thanjust nbc, sarah. This is about a long history of News Organisations who made a calculus that it was not worth taking the risk of going up against powerful interests to report tough stories of this type. And this was particularly true about Sexual Violence, which is something both of our cultures have failed to speak about for a long time. And in the case of Harvey Weinstein, there is a plot that is carefully reported out in this book in which, you know, he was huddled with the National Enquirer and the top editor there, who was in a business relationship with him, and digging up dirt on people reporting on him. And he, at the same time, was in receipt of information about nbc and the secret settlements they had, and one of their top talents who had a series of allegations against him. None of this is speculative. The National Inquirer began to run stories about matt lauer, this top anchor at nbc, and began to besiege nbc employees with calls about this. Ok, but i mean, nbc in a way, they almost laughed at this suggestion because the National Inquirer had so much dirt on matt lauer and was reporting it, the idea that they might be holding back. Nbc said it was uh, sorry nbc said it was never contacted by ami, or made aware in any way of any threats from them. And they make the point that is was preposterous, this idea that there was they would take a threat seriously about matt lauer, since they were already covering him so much. And again, that denial is in there, as is the testimony of four different sources who say a threat was delivered. But the point is broader than that, sarah. You can the book doesnt go farther than the facts of what these sources say and what nbc denies. What is not in dispute, again, is that this was a company with a set of secrets, a long pattern of a corporate practice of burying these allegations with secret pay outs which they have now admitted to. And that at the same time that this reporting was happening and Harvey Weinstein was bearing down on them with threats and enticements in all these calls they have now admitted to, those secrets were under threat of exposure. Ok, but matt lauer, who was one of the nbc anchors, i mean, he himself has after actually a silence of a couple of years written out, saying that it was a consensual affair at the heart of it, what you have said is categorically false and designed to sell a book. Well, there are seven claims about matt lauer that are mentioned in the book, including the Rape Allegation that he is referring to. And like every other tract of investigative reporting in this book, its laid out in a way that is incredibly fair to matt lauer, that incorporates his thinking and rebuttals, and people can decide for themselves when they see this claim from a Young Journalist who does say that she said no to a specific sex act, that she was too drunk to consent, and that she was assaulted. You know, ill let peoplejudge whether they agree with that testimonial but certainly, this was something that. Because, of course, it was a relationship that went be on after that allegation. Well, you have to be careful about the terms you use, right . Because he says this was an affair, and that claim is in there. She says that, you know, he was the most powerful man at her company and she was fearful and wanted to convince herself that it was ok, so she readily admits there are communications afterwards where she had contact with him. Thats a common facet of Sexual Assault. Right. So what happens . Youre in a situation where nbc basically say were not going to run this story. They suggested i bring it elsewhere. They sent it out of the door. And you describe at the time, i was kind of rock bottom, career wise. Yes. Can you tell us what it was like for you at that stage . Well, the book is about the extreme tactics deployed by powerful people to quash these kinds of stories. And so, at that time, not only was i losing myjob over this i was ultimately, you know, terminated by nbc after i refused to stop reporting on this story i also was being told by sources to get a gun. I had moved out of my home. I was being followed. And i was ultimately able to follow a trail of clues to document the paper trail and get all of the parties to admit to this International Espionage operation where i was being followed by it sounds stranger than fiction but secret agents, and so were sources. It was, to say the least, an unsettling period. And i document that, sarah, not to be woe is me but to try to illustrate the sincere challenges that reporters in both of our countries face when they attempt to hold the powerful accountable. I mean, you paint this extraordinary picture of even taking letters to a safe deposit box in case you should disappear as to what people should do. I mean, it does sound fantastical. And yet, there is a documented paper trail and, you know, this is reporting that has not been in dispute. Harvey weinstein hired an israeli firm called black cube, which is staffed by former members of the mossad and other Israeli Military and intelligence entities, and they deployed agents and subcontractors using false identities and front companies. This is how far the wealthy and connected can go to bury the truth. 0k, of course hes will be facing trial next year. He will. And i one imagines he would dispute all these allegations. How do you get to the bottom of it . How did you establish those facts . Well, i know the format is back and forth but this is not a he said, she said. He doesnt dispute that. We have the contracts, we have the signatures of his attorney. All parties involved have admitted to that. So, for you, youre in a situation where youre moving out of your home. You are, what, worried about your life . You know, im careful to draw the distinction. I was not a journalist in pakistan, in russia, in any number of places where journalists turn up dead all the time when they report on powerful interests. I had the fortunate position of being protected by american criminal laws, being protected by the american First Amendment which, by the way, creates more space in my country than you have in this country to do tough reporting on powerful, litigious people. Thats an important distinction. So i am conscious of the position of privilege i was in. I also didnt have a family to support. I didnt have kids. My working level producer who lost his job over this, rich mchugh, he did have kids to support. There were lots of people around this who were in a tougher position, so ultimately, it is difficult but also, i felt lucky. Ok, but you felt driven, you felt it important to tell this story which, i mean, you could say anyjournalist might feel that. But did was there something beyond that . Was there Something Else driving you that perhaps related to your own familys experience with abuse . Im very forthright in the book in talking about the way in which my Family History which included my sisters Sexual Assault allegation against a powerful guy in hollywood was weaponised against me and used as a cudgel by Harvey Weinstein, who searched for any and all personal dirt to throw at me in these legal threat letters that came at me. Ok, you said abuse allegations against a powerful figure in hollywood. I mean, the powerful figure was your father. Yes. Woody allen. And we should i mean, its a well documented story. Not everyone is going to know about it, though. So, i mean, this was your mother, the actor mia farrow, had 14 biological and adopted children, some with your father woody allen. Woody allen then, when they split up, he married one of your sisters. And another, dylan, who was, what, just two years older than you . Yes. Made an allegation when she was seven against your father. Yes. And she seems and you write about it in the book central and critical to, in a way, what was partly driving you, but also to the way that you went about this story. Well, there was no direct factual link between any of the stories that i have reported on, and her own, it gave me an understanding of the stakes of the issue and what the sources that i was talking to at the time were up against, both in terms of the personal trauma that they went through and also in terms of the system that rapidly clamped down on them to try to stop them from talking. So, i had insightand i cared deeply about the issue while still being at arms length and impartial and willing to go wherever the facts took me. I think this process very clearly was very fair to Harvey Weinstein. I mean, you cause you went to recount how you called your sister up before you went to interview rose mcgowan, the actress, one of those making allegations, and you asked for her advice. What did she say . She talked about how difficult it is to speak about these issues, and hers was a case where a powerful person hired an army of private investigators to try to smear the cops, to try to smear the judge in the case and thats a whole separate fact pattern. But it certainly gave me some insight into the idea that these stranger than fiction systems could exist, and it was helpful to speak to her and a number of otherfriends that i have who experienced Sexual Violence aboutjust how wrenching it is to talk about these difficult parts of ones past. And, yeah, i mean, and obviously, its had a sort of a profound effect on your whole family. You referred to your fatherjust earlier as a powerful hollywood figure and were in a rather strange situation because a few years ago your mother suggested that actually your father might be frank sinatra, and you were sort of interesting, your response to it. But she said, and who she had been married to before, and it made a lot of people question why you didnt then do a paternity test, because you could, by taking a dna test, actually separate yourself from this man who you dont refer to as your father. Well, i do actually, in my writing about that case, refer to him as my father because its not in dispute that in ethical, in legal terms, he was both of our fathers, he married one of my sisters, he allegedly, according to her very credible and backed by a lot of evidence claim abused another sister. There is yet another age aged claim of sexual abuse that came out this past year from another woman and theres been documentation about his sort of obsessive writing about underage girls. So, this is clearly a case of a serial abuser with this tendency and, critically, in terms of dealing with this question that you just raised, woody allen has used as a cajole against my sister and my family this idea that the fact that my sister was adopted, both the sister that he married and the sister that he sexually abused. He denies this of course. Of course he denies the sexual abuse but in both cases, he has referenced this issue of a lack of biological ties as kind of a soft rationale. It creeps into his arguments, you know, that its more 0k to abuse in this way, to marry the sibling of your children because theres a lack of biological ties. The biological ties dont matter here. Crimes matter. Abuses of power matters. And thats why that conversation is a distraction. But from your own point of view, would it not be a release if he wasnt your father . I grew up with almost all adopted siblings, you know. I think that when i say that, theres a tendency to react with the lady doth protest too much and we all care so much about paternity and lineage. But for me, i know what the situation is there and its enough, its nothing to do with me. I know and i dont need it to be part of the public narrative, which is already one in which my goal is for this important body of reporting to stand on its own, and this work, which is so much about these brave victims coming forward and brave sources and whistleblowers and all kinds of sources are coming forward. So, even if you took the test, you wouldnt go public with it . Well, in other words, while i know what i need to know about this, it is a private matter and surely a distraction from what i think is very clearly substantive reporting. But can i ask you Something Else, which is to do with something you were very aware of, which is people not believing these women, and you recount as well about your own feelings with your sister where you were slow to accept what she was saying. And is that something that you were aware, as you were going through this investigation . Ive always been very forthright about the fact that i was far from heroic on this issue. I, like so many people, reacting to this and the culture and particularly reacting to this and families where this is a personal and difficult and traumatic issue, just wanted it to go away, and i recount in catch and kill, this book, the conversations i had with my sister where i told her, why cant you just shut up . No matter how credible your claim is, it doesnt really matter that much. Why bring it up again . Its going to rev up this whole machine that attacks you, that attacks my mother blaming the mother by proxy is the oldest tactic in the book in child sexual abuse cases, so it comes at her often, too. And theres this question in so many families and across our society of is it worth it . Part of the journey in this book is me realising it is worth it and its important. Its important what she did and was important what these brave sources did to out the truth. And Harvey Weinstein himself said it to you, because you had conversations with him where you were wanting his response to the charges you were making. You couldnt save someone you love and now you think you can save everyone. How did you feel when he said that . Every investigative report requires a long and fair window of comment and a lot of people have asked sort of in surprise about those conversations with Harvey Weinstein, which are colourful and explosive because he was a colourful and explosive character, you know, and famous for his volatility. But its less surprising to me and probably would be less surprising to you, because as journalists, we know when you do a story like this, youre going to spend a long time tangling with the subject of the reporting, and the goal in those interactions was to be as fair as possible, and youll see in that scene, you know, my response to that is, lets talk about the allegations against you because these are serious and we want to be fair. So, the moment that the new yorker publishes your story, how do you feel . Theres a moment that i describe in the book of it feeling almost like an anti catharsis, that it was numbing after such a long haul of sitting on all this evidence and all of these obstacles directed notjust at me, but at these incredible sources who had spoken, and just desperately hoping that it accomplished something and having no idea what the impact would be other than as a journalist and as an attorney and as someone who had precisely interrogated the facts, knowing that the evidence was robust enough, that the story itself would be airtight. The cultural impact. Well, as that unfolded, with me too and a lot of women coming forward, what were you. Yes, and men in some cases. Yes, and what were your thoughts as you watch that . Well, my relationship with it is primarily as a journalist. Im not an activist, im not involved in movement building. You said it triggered the me too movement, but really, more accurately, tarana burke, this wonderful American Social activist, had been using that phrase me too for years, and is still in the trenches in active social change. Butjournalists have emotions. They do, and my relationship with it is, therefore, more about the journalistic side, which is i felt incredibly moved by the sources with stories not just of Sexual Violence, but of many forms of corporate and government corruption and malfeasance flooding into my inbox, and many of those were also stories about Sexual Violence people speaking about difficult, untold truths came to me again and again, and ive been able to break other important stories since as a result of that. I am moved by that, gratefulfor it, and at a time when both of our countries are sceptical of whistleblowers and cracking down on whistleblowers in various ways, this swell of people speaking truth to power has been hugely important to our democracies. You told the Guardian Newspaper here that the underlying reason that you think was for for the alleged cover up wasnt necessarily some evil people at the centre of it, trying to something, it was, you said, just baseline casual misogyny. Yes, but then also, i think, maybe most importantly, it is a story of your garden variety corporate cowardice, and people who see an opportunity to speak truth to power and look the other way not because theyre evil, but because they dont think its their responsibility. This book is full of characters who pass the buck and its also full of characters who are incredibly brave, the whistleblowers, the sources, that producer i mention. So this catch and kill it is going on in News Organisations all over the world . Absolutely, the problem persists. But there is a real strain of optimism in this reporting and the fact that the sources refused to shut up, even after all these obstacles were thrown at them. And a whole group of reporters i profile in this story refuse to stop. It gives me hope, ultimately. Ronan farrow, thank you for coming on hardtalk. Thank you. Its a pleasure. Hello. Thursday was another rough day of weather across many parts of the uk. For some it was snow that fell from the sky. This is how it looked on thursday evening over high ground in staffordshire. For many more it was rain that rain falling on sodden ground, so there are a number of flood warnings in force. You can read about those on the bbc weather website. The culprit, an area of low pressure spinning across continental europe. This stripe of cloud here is what brought the persistent rain across parts of the midlands and Northern England. A little bit of snow for some as well. That particular rain band is now working its way westwards and weakening, but in our area of low pressure is still spinning around, still in charge of the scene, so it will more outbreaks of rain in from the east as we go through the day. So across england and wales, expect a largely cloudy day. We will see some outbreaks of rain at times, much of it quite light and patchy, but there could be some heavier rain into east anglia and the south east later on. Some rain affecting eastern and southern parts of scotland, further north west across scotland, also northern ireland, morning showers will tend to fizzle to leave some sunshine through the afternoon. It will still be quite breezy, but perhaps not quite as chilly as it was during thursday. Now, as we head on through friday night into the early hours of saturday, you can see further outbreaks of patchy rain spreading from the east towards the west. Best of the clear spells to be found across parts of scotland and northern ireland, although in northern scotland there could be some quite dense fog patches around to take us into saturday morning. And into the weekend, yes, our area of low pressure still with us. But notice the white lines the isobars there arent many of them. The low is becoming quite flabby, which means there is not much to push the various areas of rain around and so it is a little tricky for us to forecast the exact details at this stage. But it does look like many of us will see cloud and some outbreaks of rain at times during saturday. The best chance of brightness perhaps down towards the south. It wont be as windy as it has been. Now, on sunday it looks like theres a greater chance of seeing heavier and more persistent rain returning from the east, potentially moving into parts of Northern England and the midlands that have already seen flooding. So, worth staying in touch with the forecast. The best of the brightness i think to be found across the western side of the uk, particularly for northern ireland. Now, as we move through sunday night into monday, a little ridge of High Pressure is going to move its way through. And actually for the start of the week, that will settle things down. But theres a big low waiting in the wings in the atlantic, and that will bring the return of some rain at the time as we had through next week. It will often be windy, but eventually it will turn a bit milder. This is the briefing, im victoria fritz. Our top story more than 19 hours on a plane. We report from onboard an experimental non stop flight from london to sydney. This plane is almost spookily empty. There are only 53 of us on board because that is as many it can carry this distance. Us democrats are now focusing part of their impeachment case against President Trump on an allegation of bribery. Bean counters draw the ire of coffee lovers in switzerland and a mighty row is brewing over the countrys emergency supply of coffee. In business body positive fashion