It’s obvious that Lorne Michaels is guilty of the same thing,
The fact that pervert Weinstein is an Obama creature DNC enabler is just SNL buying more than the basic cable subscription,
The real story for me is why did the NYTs even report on it? And why now?
There is more is going on here,
I can only think of the history of the NYT's (and all of its monolithic liberal media brothers) treatment of homosexual child abuse in the Catholic priesthood. I remember, back in the 70s and 80s, hearing of people trying to report it to the media and getting nowhere.
Then in the 90s the media script flipped and all the stories that were spiked before were now dug up an reported widely as if they were first being heard of.
The only sense of it that I could make out was that for the sake of protecting a marginal homosexual movement, the liberal homosexual tolerant Catholic Church was given a pass. But when the homosexual movement had grown strong enough - to not let the story spin against homosexuality, but only against the Catholic Church - then the pass was pulled.
This could be a feminist equivalent: For the sake of protecting liberal feminist sluts, who used the casting couch as a path to advance their career, elite liberal male "predators" were given a pass.
But when liberal feminist sluts were (as a group) strong enough - to not allow the story to spin against them - then the passes for the Weinsteins, Bill Crosbys etc... was pulled.
And so by extending what is acceptable the left gets more extremist on every front as it eats its own.
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/
Apparently, they were originally going to report this in 2004.
Only 12 years late.
Now mind you, I am not saying they were going to report this in 2004. But it sounds like it, by that story.