A New York Times report on Harvey Weinstein and Miramax employee Fabrizio Lombardo was buried after pressure from the studio and high profile actors, including Australian actor Russell Crowe, according to an explosive new claim.
Sharon Waxman, who edits the online Hollywood trade publication The Wrap, says she wrote a comprehensive report on Weinstein's sexual behaviour for The New York Times in 2004 but that the paper cut out its most contentious parts.
"After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly ... and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted," Waxman says.
"I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known," she says. "I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times, and that he was a powerful person overall."
The report which finally ran focused on the sacking of the then-head of Miramax's Italian office, Fabrizio Lombardo; Waxman says her original report quoted "multiple accounts [that Lombardo] had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein's women needs, among other things."
According to Waxman she was contacted "directly" by actors Damon and New Zealand-born Crowe "to vouch for Lombardo"; Waxman's wording on that point is significant, as most media reporting on the allegations presume the actors called to vouch for Weinstein.
Waxman also cites "unknown discussions well above my head at the Times."
The explosive claims that Weinstein was a serial sexual harasser were published last week by The New York Times; in the wake of the claims he has been rebuked by a number of high profile actresses including Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Dame Judi Dench.
This week Weinstein was sacked by his own company, which is now investigating a change of name.
A spokesperson for The New York Times told Fairfax Media today the paper's newsroom "has a long history of exposing corruption and abuse by powerful people and institutions" and notes it was The New York Times who last week "was the first to publish a meticulously reported investigation of Mr Weinstein revealing numerous settlements for sexual harassment."
The 2004 story by Sharon Waxman was published on December 13, 2004, the spokesman said.
"No one currently at The Times has knowledge of editorial decisions made on that story," the spokesperson said. "But in general the only reason a story or specific information would be held is if it did not meet our standards for publication."
Jonathan Landman, a former high-ranking New York Times editor who was Waxman's commissioning editor in 2004, said this week that the story was not spiked because of pressure, but inferred that it lacked substantial evidence to back up its claims.
"Sharon has now had more than a decade to pursue this story unencumbered by me or any New York Times editor," Landman told the US publication Politico.
"Why, if she had the goods on Weinstein in 2004, has she been unable or unwilling to publish something in the Wrap, where she was in charge?
"Could it be because she didn't actually have the goods then, now or in between?" Landman said.
Waxman essentially acknowledges this in a postscript to her original story, in which she admits she did not pursue the story subsequently because "the moment had passed to go back and write the missing piece ... and I did not have sufficient evidence to write about a pay-off, even though I knew one existed."
The papers two senior editors, Bill Keller and Jill Abramson, have no recollection of being pressured by Weinstein over the Waxman story, according to New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet.
Mr Baquet said the newly released Weinstein story took "months of work by two experienced investigative reporters" and included "on the record accounts of numerous women who were harassed".
It also included details of Weinstein's financial settlements paid "to keep women from talking," he said.
Baquet said that by Waxman's "own description she did not have anything near what was revealed in our story."
Waxman acknowledged the work of The New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. "I applaud [them] for getting the story in print," she said. "I'm sure it was a long and difficult road."
But, she says, she "gagged" when she read an editorial by columnist Jim Rutenberg in which he said "no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish."
"That's right, Jim, no one, including The New York Times," Waxman exhorted.
Waxman's position is difficult to assess: in one breath she criticises The New York Times itself for "enabling" Weinstein through its silence, but on the other acknowledges that she did not pursue the story herself at The Wrap because her focus was "on raising money, building a website and starting a media company", in other words, the same commercial considerations she implies kept The New York Times silent.
Subsequently, Waxman says, she "did not hear about further pay-offs or harrassment and thought the issue was in the past. Weinstein had made a big effort, supposedly, to curb his temper and behavior, which was reflected in other areas of his public life."
Comment has been sought from Russell Crowe and Matt Damon's representatives.
