Investigative reporter Ronan Farrow’s “fearsome” brand of journalism has rightfully made him into a Pulitzer Prize-winning hero, GQ magazine gushed in a profile published this week.
Perhaps GQ should take a leaf out of Farrow’s “fearsome” book.
The #MeToo reporter, who shot to new levels of fame after he exposed Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as a sexual predator, is the star of a nearly 900-word GQ article tracking his rise from failed cable news host to the leader of a “cultural reckoning.”
But just as the article is notable for what it says, it’s also notable for what it does not say.
For the former, we turn to the moment where Farrow links former President Bill Clinton to the #MeToo movement. Here’s the relevant passage [emphasis added]:
This is noteworthy given that Farrow has just now added his name to the very small number of reporters in wider media who are willing to come right out and lump America’s 42nd president in with other high-profile sexual abusers like Weinstein and Rose. The above passage is also awkward considering Farrow acted as an adviser to Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State. It’s probably safe to say the award-winning #MeToo reporter is off of the Clinton’s Christmas card list until further notice.
Lastly, there is what’s missing from the GQ profile. In a report that serves mostly to praise Farrow’s journalist chops, it’s astonishing that there’s not a single mention of the name “Brett Kavanaugh.”
I say “astonishing” because Farrow’s coverage of the allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against the Supreme Court justice ranks among the worst published by any reporter during that time period, and that’s saying something considering how badly the press handled that particularly ugly episode.
This isn’t hyperbole. Farrow’s unverified and most likely bogus “scoop” alleging Kavanaugh once exposed himself during a drinking game when he was a student at Yale would be comical were it not so infuriatingly irresponsible. Don’t forget: Farrow and co-conspirator Jane Meyer went to bat with their flimsy and uncorroborated Yale story not once, but twice! Their reporting was so thin, and so preposterous, that it almost certainly undermined the unverified allegations of misconduct raised separately by Christine Blasey Ford.
Indeed, the only person who can say he (unwittingly) did more damage to the Democrats’ case against Kavanaugh is celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti, whose own attempt to paint the conservative judge as a violent sexual predator actually pushed moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, into voting to confirm Kavanaugh.
All of this is to ask: How does a reporter write an entire article saluting Farrow’s “fearsome” brand of investigative journalism and not once mention his spectacular reporting failures during the Kavanaugh confirmation fight?
This GQ profile is the equivalent of someone writing 900-words on Bill Buckner and not once mentioning the 1986 World Series. The only reason one would omit that part of Buckner’s otherwise impressive baseball career would be to do the poor guy a solid.
It’s a sweet gesture, sure, but it’s not exactly hard-hitting journalism. It’s certainly not “fearsome.”
(h/t David Rutz)
