Matt Lauer is probably right about Ronan Farrow

The New York Times published a critique of Ronan Farrow's work, "Is Ronan Farrow Too Good To Be True?" I haven't read it but it reportedly points out at that Farrow's book, Catch & Kill, has accusations of conspiracies and cover-ups for which he provides no evidence. The article relates this to the Trump era when Trump will say anything, make any baseless accusation. Trump's opponents aren't nearly as bad but have still responded in kind, with conspiracy theories not backed by evidence. Look at the whole Russiagate thing. Especially the pee tape accusation.

Matt Lauer has chimed in with an article on Mediaite, "Why Ronan Farrow is Indeed Too Good to be True".  Lauer writes about Farrow that:

1. He consistently failed to confirm stories told to him by his main sources. 

2. He failed to provide evidence of important communications he alleges took place between accusers and me. In most cases, Ronan doesn’t even claim to have personally seen evidence of those communications. 

3. He used misleading language to manipulate readers into believing things that could easily be false, or were at least un-provable. In some cases he undeniably withheld information from the reader that would call the credibility of sources into question. 

4. He routinely presented stories in a way that would suit his activist goals, as opposed to any kind of journalistic standards.

...

...I focus on flawed reporting and factual errors that could have easily been avoided with minimal effort on Ronan Farrow’s part, and which bring his version of this narrative into a significantly different light. 

What I am sharing here tightly fits the pattern of journalistic lapses laid out in reporting on Farrow by The New York Times. 

“At times, he does not always follow the typical journalistic imperatives of corroboration and rigorous disclosure, or he suggests conspiracies that are tantalizing but he cannot prove,” Times writer Ben Smith wrote of Farrow in his piece on Monday, May 18.

Lauer makes a pretty good case. He fact checked Farrow's reporting on his own case, easily found and contacted the people his alleged victim claimed to have told at the time and found that they told a different story.

Oh, and he mentions that NBC debunked the claim long ago that Lauer had a secret button in his office that would lock women inside. I didn't know it had been debunked, but it seemed a bit outlandish. How would you have something like that installed?

The thing that bothered me about Farrow was that he started using the lack of evidence in the Weinstein case as his new standard of proof. When an interviewer asked about lack of evidence against Woody Allen, Farrow said, Well, there was no evidence against Harvey Weinstein, either. He said the same thing when he tried to get in on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. He found another victim whose accusations may have been true, but seemed less plausible and had no evidence to support them. Even an interviewer on MSNBC doubted the claim and Farrow said it again. There was no evidence against Weinstein, either.

Other than his anti-Woody Allen stuff which I think has been proven false, I'd be happy to believe everything Farrow says. Like his claim that the Clinton campaign, which had gotten money from Weinstein, tried to cover up his crimes. They called Farrow and asked what he was writing about him which Farrow said he somehow took as a threat. Later the Clinton campaign canceled an interview Farrow was going to do with the candidate.

The Clinton people say that they asked because they were going to work on a documentary with Weinstein and didn't want to do it if Farrow was working on something that would make it a massive embarrassment to them.

I know Farrow is supposed to be a boy genius. If he is, he got that from Woody Allen, not Mia Farrow. Certainly not from Frank Sinatra. But I'm not sure that going to college at a young age is proof. Look at James Franco. Look at Natalie Portman. Look at Brooke Shields. It's astonishing how academia sucks up to celebrities. I'm sure they loved having Mia Farrow accompanying her favorite white child to all his classes.

You can't tell anyway. Early educational achievement and real genius are two different things.