Here's A Concrete Way That Documentary Reporting Changes The World
To learn more about how journalists achieve this, listen to Sound Jugment's interview with The 13th Step creators...also what Weinstein's case being over-turned is connected to the same issue
For those who arrived at the MeToo moment after working in an office environment at the turn of the last century—which normalized this sort of behaviour—my thoughts quietly go out to you.
Last Thursday, New York’s highest court overturned the case of Harvey Weinstein in a 4-3 decision against his 2020 felony sex crimes charge that sent him to Rikers for his first 23 year-long-sentence (at which time he is to be transferred to California, where he will serve more time for further crimes he was convicted of in that state).
I was annoyed that his name returned to my awareness. But I was also confused. How could this charge be reversed? When he was found guilty in February of 2020, it was the only good news, the world over. I had clung to that.
To resolve my confusion, as I often do, I turned to The Daily for some background. Why did this happen? How could this be justice?
Last Friday, April 26, Jodi Kantor, one of the NYTimes journalists who broke the Weinstein story back in 2017 that ignited the #MeToo movement laid out the facts of the case for The Daily.
This news brought me back to my Number 1 Bingey List pick for 2023 - The 13th Step
The 13th Step artfully decodes what 13-stepping is, and then uncovers some difficult stories from women in the addiction recovery community who have faced sexual harassment and abuse—in one case from the man who founded the facility they sought treatment at—in that vulnerable moment when they are trying hard to achieve sobriety.
It’s a series that grabbed me for a number of reasons. First, it bravely shone a light on an issue that was hiding in plain sight. The concept of 13th-stepping was something of a bad joke in addiction recovery circles. Women would quip over the baked goods at meetings: ‘Don’t go near Jimmy, he goes for the new ones….he likes the 13th step.’ That kind of thing. It’s the sort of shorthand information that women exchange with each other.
Second, the fearlessness of the journalism that went into this series should be noted. This reporting began with a 25-minute news story which was broadcast on New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR) in March of 2022. One month after that went to air, multiple houses were attacked with a targeted vandalism campaign (including Chooljian’s, her parent’s home and the New Director for NHPR). And then, six months later, they were slapped with a defamation lawsuit from Spofford—a wealthy man who had a great deal to lose from this story.
But NHPR did not yield. They stuck by their reporting. They supported their reporter with enhanced security measures and leveraged their insurance to pay for the damaged property. They resourced their legal defense. This would all prove successful; a Superior Court in New Hampshire finally cleared NHPR of all wrongdoing and even suggested that it was “futile” to attempt to reverse this.
Lastly, this series impressed me because it made a number of innovative production choices; including how they shared their trigger warning, and the way that Chooljian repeatedly broke down the fourth wall in her narration which allowed it to be both highly effective and deeply connecting.
This series isn’t for everyone, I get that
It deals with some very tricky subject matter, from addiction to sexual abuse allegations, to a frank discussion of suicide.
But here’s my pitch to you: Even if you can’t listen to the series, you should learn from the makers about how they made it. I’ve written about it previously.
But if you want to hear directly from the producer and the editor of this project, you need to listen to this episode of Sound Judgment.
Sound Judgment is a fantastic podcast that breaks down how storytelling magic is made, through in-depth interviews with the biggest and best-known hosts of today. Previous episodes have included Ana Sale, Stephanie Wittels Wachs, Glynn Washington, Jonathan Menjivar, and others). There’s also a companion newsletter to subscribe to.
This week on the podcast, Sound Judgment features an interview with Host and Reporter Lauren Chooljian and Story Editor Alison McAdam. It’s the first episode of a two-parter, so make sure the follow Sound Judgment if you want to hear more.
If you want to get into the meaty issues of the 13th Step:
How to report on something as sensitive and difficult as sexual misconduct—and then produce something that’s connecting and listenable;
This story began with an anonymous tip…but then progressed very far beyond the anonymous emails';
How did they get there, and what were the steps they had to take along the way?
What did this small public radio outfit do to make sure that a contentious story like this could stand the test of a lawsuit?
Alongside the news last week, I am reminded of the role that journalists play in society
Last Friday on The Daily, Kantor, explained how the prosecution had done something novel with the Weinstein case. They had called a number of women to the witness stand, what Kantor called “a whole chorus of women,” to share a whole multitude of stories about things that Weinstein had done to them. The legal term for this is Molineux witnesses, which refers to the trial witnesses that the prosecution called upon to tell their stories of criminal acts about Weinstein.
The issue here, legally speaking, was the things the witnesses alleged had nothing to do with the crimes on trial. And what was remarkable, in a legal sense, was that this tactic worked. It was widely seen as a victory for the MeToo movement.
In the Weinstein case, after more than 100 women had come forward with allegations, only two of them were deemed to be viable enough to stand trial in a case that was hoping to convict him. Some stories were “messy,” others alleged terrible things, but they were not criminal offenses.
The issue the Defense has now successfully raised was that the presiding judge, Justice James Burke, had made a critical error when he allowed prosecutors to call several women as witnesses, the “chorus,” to testify that Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them, abused them, threatened or extorted them…all meant to provide a bigger picture of Weinstein’s character to show a pattern of actions.
But, now the Defense has successfully argued that bringing these extra witnesses on the stand had instead wrongly “diminish[ed the] defendant’s character before the jury.”
To use plain English, this all kind of sucks. Because there are far too many examples of men not being convicted of the crimes they clearly committed (looking at you, Jian Ghomeshi).
What made the Weinstein case so different is that it felt like the law might actually be working in favour of the women in the courtroom.
“What made this remarkable was that it was as it the legal reality had kind of caught up of the logic of the MeToo movement, in which these patterns, these groups of women, had become so important,” Kantor said.
The promise of the Weinstein case for others in the future was that, finally, a monster who hid in plain sight and operated at the highest levels could be found guilty.
“It’s definitely a symbolic blow to the MeToo movement,” said Kantor. But, she qualifies, it is important because it’s part of a slow march toward change, and that on balance, this is part of how to make change in the law. Small steps, little bits at a time; the Statute of Limitations was extended for reporting rape crimes directly in response to the Weinstein allegations.
Journalists are trained to work with real people and actual names, wherever possible. They do this, in some part, because of the law. When a story gets litigious and the lawsuits start flying around and the legal experts are called into the room, the lawyers are quick to remind you that the law does not easily apply to anonymous people.
If it’s the lawyer’s job to defend the journalism, and it’s the journalist’s job to defend their sources, how can both of these things happen if real names are not offered?
Reporters—and podcast producers and editors—tell the stories of the people who need to be heard. Often these are challenging stories, on every level—from emotional, to legal to uncomfortable.
Sometimes a story is reported well and it ends up in court (like the 13th Step). Sometimes the journalists are there to expose a truth that the courts cannot see (like Bone Valley…Leo Schofield was released from prison this week, 36 years after he was wrongfully convicted).
And then the law is there to take the next step along the path, as in what happened with Weinstein’s case in 2020.
Stories that are told, which must later be defended, that then later turn into a lawsuit, are here to help push the law in new directions. Thank you to all those journalists and other storytellers who continue to push the law.
Two Bingey List pics Recieved Peabody Noms!
The Retrievals and You Didn’t See Nothin’ were both featured on the Bingey List (number 10 and 11, respectively).
Also, I also did a year-end report of all three Serial productions from 2023, including The Retrievals….check it out!