Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Dylan and Ronan Farrow - still non-persons at the New Yorker

There appears to be an editorial policy at the New Yorker prohibiting the discussion of anything that might possibly embarrass Woody Allen.

Meanwhile Jessica Valenti in the Nation, which I am beginning to like more and more, addresses the issue of the presumption that Woody Allen is innocent of molestation and the refusal by almost all Woody Allen partisans to presume the innocence of Mia and Dylan Farrow. Instead, the Woody Allen partisans feel it's a closed case - Mia Farrow was a woman scorned, and we know how hysterical bitches can get. That Mia Farrow would devote her life to a malicious evil campaign to destroy Woody Allen through charges of pedophilia is considered an absolute no-brainer by these champions of the presumption of innocence.

A much better piece on the whole presumption of innocence, and which Valenti rightfully links to, is Woody Allen's Good Name by Aaron Bady. He addresses the presumption of innocence and burden of proof issue:
What is the burden of proof for assuming that a person is lying? If you are a famous film director, it turns out to be quite high. You don’t have to say a word in your defense, in fact, and people who have directed documentaries about you will write lengthy essays in the Daily Beast tearing down the testimony of your accusers. You can just go about your life making movie after movie, and it’s fine. But if you are a woman who has accused a great film director of molesting you when you were seven, the starting point is the presumption that, without real evidence, you are not telling the truth. In the court of public opinion, a woman accusing a great film director of raping her has no credibility which his fans are bound to respect. He has something to lose, his good name. She does not, because she does not have a good name. She is living in hiding, under an assumed name. And when she is silent, the Daily Beast does not rise to her defense.