I do think the writer missed one important thing - that the media might be an appropriate venue to first air things when the accused is rich and powerful and has powerful friends who might help him/ her bury things. Especially if the accusers are neither rich nor powerful. But I do think he has some valid points about the intolerance of dissenting opinions that sometimes ensues. Not to mention the cynical attempts to gain political points with the news.
We don't seem to have a place to share such things, so I decided to create a thread for anyone else who wants to post an interesting article and doesn't feel like starting a whole new thread for it. I figure that if articles provoke discussion, fine. If they don't, that's fine, too.
A small contribution, perhaps, to exposing each other to viewpoints that may be a bit outside our usual echo chambers.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... ndal/20414
Quote: Is the accuser always holy now?’
Those words spoken by John Proctor in The Crucible, a voice of concern in Arthur Miller’s swirling Salem, keep intruding into my mind as I read reports about Harvey Weinstein’s alleged foul behaviour. Actress after actress is coming forward to allege that Weinstein harassed her, molested her, or in some cases raped her. All these women must be treated seriously and sensitively. It seems likely, given what we know, given what we’ve heard, that Weinstein abused these women.
But are the accusers holy? Are their accusations all we need to decide Weinstein is a criminal creep? Should their allegations be sufficient to condemn him? That’s how it’s looking right now, and this should worry us. A lot.
Across the media and Twittersphere, on TV talk shows and in newspaper gossip circles, the allegations against Weinstein are treated as truths. Almost as final judgements. He’s guilty as sin – that’s how you feel, right? Admit it. It’s how I feel. I’m just not sure I should.