00:06:16.840It's a very different thing to say that someone is guilty of something because they've been accused of something, which is what he originally did.
00:06:26.280And now he's backing down here without saying it and just going after the people who called him out for it.
00:06:32.580And then he continues, I've had people accusing me of being paid by Ryan Reynolds to post it.
00:06:37.800And then he's trying to be sarcastic, passive aggressive here saying, which is devastating news because apparently I could have been getting Hollywood money.
00:06:46.500this entire time, instead of standing up for victim survivors for free. Anyway, Ryan, if you're
00:06:52.740reading this, I apparently worked for you and payroll has effed up. Yeah, I think the reason
00:06:58.420why people believe that he was paid for this was because they thought maybe he was a little smarter
00:07:05.260to do his due diligence before he posted what he did. And now instead of actually admitting that
00:07:12.180he was wrong he's trying to make new posts to correct it so he just made another post
00:07:18.800with other people from hollywood and this time he added brad pitt woody allen ezra ezra miller
00:07:26.000that's blake liby's lawyer she should be on there too by the way and jared leto james franco a lot
00:07:34.500of the people that i actually mentioned in my episode why aren't they there but anyways now
00:07:38.620maybe he listened so he added these people but then he said something different he says the
00:07:43.860reputation that makes an allegation difficult to believe is the same reputation that made these
00:07:49.460abusers easier to conceal he's saying allegations now so it's very different thing to be accused of
00:07:56.040something than to actually be guilty of what you're accused of and then he adds here in the
00:08:01.040caption we need to stop asking whether someone seems like an alleged abuser and start listening
00:08:06.740to what victim survivors are telling us.
00:08:10.780That's what we've been doing for two years.
00:16:34.960And that was, you know, incredibly difficult.
00:16:38.260anyway so many questions still surrounding this case as i said the other day her mom has come out
00:16:45.060and commented on this and now her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend or whatever he is came out with a
00:16:52.020statement through his lawyer so he has lawyered up now there is an investigation going on so much
00:16:58.620more information is going to come out surrounding the circumstances of what actually happened here
00:17:04.760and of course the fact that she wasn't alone when this happened so who was responsible who called
00:17:10.800911 I said the other day it was a woman because that was what was reported on and now it's been
00:17:16.200said that Brian Hickerson's brother came to the apartment and Brian was asleep and he was the one
00:17:23.420who found Hayden so yeah we're learning more and more about that case okay so let's get into this
00:17:29.540other story of Jason Arday, the biggest fraud in Cambridge history. So I found this article in the
00:17:38.300rap by Sharon Waxman, and I thought it was really interesting. And also how this story can be
00:17:43.260compared to what happened to Blake Lively. So Jason Arday, if you don't know this story,
00:17:49.600he was a professor. He was the youngest black professor at Cambridge in the history of the
00:17:57.860university and everyone was like wow this guy is a genius it's amazing and then some people started
00:18:04.920questioning his credentials because it seemed a bit too good to be true and they found out that
00:18:10.380he couldn't even speak until he was 11 years old and he couldn't read until he was 18 but then he
00:18:17.300earned his doctorates in his early 20s and people were like something's not right there and then he
00:18:25.140also said that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days and when journalists started asking questions or
00:18:33.140people started digging into this Cambridge University was like leave this guy alone
00:18:38.520you're being racist by asking these questions and they really protected this guy and it turned out
00:18:45.800that he was a plagiarist and he made up all of this stuff and tragically enough when he was caught
00:18:54.100in doing all of this. He ended his life. And now the blame game started. Whose fault is this?
00:19:02.260Was it Cambridge who declined to investigate this guy? And there's also stories, by the way,
00:19:07.300that Jason Arday sent the police after a journalist who started asking him questions.
00:19:12.720And it's obvious that the people involved at Cambridge here had good intentions surrounding
00:19:19.820race and gender but what they actually did was ruining a person's life when all of this
00:19:26.560information came out that he was a fraud he could not handle it and the rap article here also
00:19:31.440mentions other similar stories when the cause was more important than actually telling the truth
00:19:38.980and she's mentioning jason blair that overambitious new york times reporter who this was in 2003
00:19:46.160who it turned out that he was using drugs
00:19:49.380while investigating and plagiarizing stories
00:19:52.480and there were people enabling him to do this.
00:19:55.800One of them was the editor Howell Raines
00:19:58.880who spent 25 years at the New York Times.
00:20:02.780He ended up stepping down after the scandal by the way
00:20:05.820and then she's also mentioning here the Rolling Stone,
00:20:09.060the R on the campus, I can't say that word here
00:20:12.500But there was a big story, an expose in the Rolling Stone about the gang art of this girl called Jackie by fraternity brothers at a party at a university in Virginia.
00:20:29.320And then it turned out that this never happened.
00:20:33.100So the Washington Post did an expose about that and said, you know, this actually never happened.
00:20:38.680And the journalist was questioned and she said that she did not want to ask Jackie too many questions because she was already traumatized by what had happened to her, which turned out was all a big lie.
00:20:53.160That article was retracted, by the way, by Rolling Stones, who was also found guilty of defamation with malice.
00:21:00.280Then she also mentioned a story here from the 1980 a Pulitzer Prize winner at the Washington
00:21:05.260Post who wrote a story about an eight-year-old boy who was a heroin addict named Jimmy and that
00:21:11.420also turned out that something she's just invented and she won a Pulitzer Prize for it in 1980. Her
00:21:16.780name was Janet Cook. So there are a lot of these examples and as Sharon Waxman is saying here just
00:21:22.420a few years ago we were called upon to greet every day as anti-racist to post our pronouns
00:21:29.120in our email signatures everyone was just being called out for questioning anything and remember
00:21:35.700i received emails from people who's like her she him he and everyone's like this is a bit too much
00:21:42.080isn't it and she's also pointing out here that this actually hurt women in the end because of
00:21:49.400all these greenlit stories with blacks and asian americans and latinos and portraying gay and trans
00:21:55.280characters on screen there were there have been a lot few roles for women and what I found
00:22:01.800interesting about all these stories that she mentions here is that they all raise the same
00:22:06.880question and I think that question also belongs in the middle of the Blake Lively story she's not
00:22:13.500mentioning Blake Lively here but when I read it I was like this is exactly what we've seen happening
00:22:19.120here as well. This professor was the result of DEI and Blake Lively is the result of Me Too.
00:22:27.020With Blake we saw what happened when a journalist really doesn't do her due diligence because she
00:22:33.240decided on the narrative before she publishes the story. I'm talking about Megan Toohey here
00:22:38.740and the New York Times article. Exactly what happened to Janet Cook in 1980 who won the
00:22:44.580Pulitzer Prize, by the way. Megan Toohey also won a Pulitzer Prize, not for this story, obviously.
00:22:50.180Yeah, everyone who questioned Blake Lively, people like me, we were called anti-women,
00:22:55.720misogynist, you don't support survivors, because we asked questions and we said,
00:23:02.400this story doesn't hold up. There's so many holes here. And then we saw the evidence of
00:23:07.540the other side, of course, and we were like, Blake Lively is lying. This is not S.H. And of course,
00:23:14.580now also after the judge ruled that her allegations would not even be considered sh in the court of
00:23:22.580law her supporters still come after people who actually question it and then because you question
00:23:29.420it you are automatically a part of the smear machine and you are the problem and this is exactly
00:23:35.900what happened to that professor at cambridge as well whom ever asked questions they were part of
00:23:43.100the problem. A journalist's job is always to question both sides of the story. Were these
00:23:48.780journalists at the New York Times as skeptical to Blake Lively's narrative as they were to Justin
00:23:55.220Baldoni and the Wayfair parties? I think we all know the answer to that. Me Too wasn't supposed
00:24:00.940to be don't ask any questions. Me Too was supposed to be don't ignore women when they come forward.