Stories as complex as the Harvey Weinstein revelations are a challenge for the press to get their arms around.
Who knew what? Why did it go on for so long? How did he ensure the silence of all the women he assaulted? Why did everyone else who “knew” restrict distribution of the intel to cocktail party chatter?
Fortunately, while contemplating how to map the path of this boiling river of outrage and indignation, most press outlets haven’t forgotten the first rule of digital journalism: NEVER, EVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPILE A LIST OF CELEBRITIES.
Some of those performing this solemn duty are:
The Daily Beast, with a list currently standing at 51 celebrity comments, arranged alphabetically (at least, until they started tacking on some more they’d found at the end.)
Business Insider, who ran out of steam at 33, but did remember to get both ‘lambasted” and “slam” in their first paragraphs.
Esquire, who could only find 28 and have gone for no particular order, although agree with Business Insider that Meryl Streep should come first.
The Telegraph had to take a rest after finding 26 comments, although made sure to assemble them in a slide show in the hope it would bring extra clicks.
Vogue, which has velvet-roped its piece to limit it to a “high-profile chorus of condemnation” ie only A-listers and people Vogue thinks are going to be HOT are allowed to share their views. (They’ve also shoe-horned in Donna Karan’s contrarian view of HW as “wonderful people.”)
Elle, which felt their Australian readers would get the idea/lose interest after 15 comments, in spite of promising “some of the most talented and lauded women in Hollywood”.
In Style (is that still going?) wearily cobbled together 11, including Julianne Moore thanking George Clooney for something or other.
New York magazine, which claims to have “all the celebrities” yet can’t beat the Daily Beast’s big swinging list. Bonus point for including Donald “not at all surprised” Trump, though.
Buzzfeed. One might have expected more from the company that has made the compiling of inane lists their signature format, but their “running list” seems to have seized up at 34. Thoughtfully, they’ve numbered their entries. And their comments have quite a bit to say on the theme of hypocrisy in a tone quite distinct from that of the steeple-fingered celebrities.
Pop Sugar has tempted readers in by using a little graphic with clickable question marks – so you don’t know whose comment you’re going to get (*hyperventilates*). Saint Peacock got Ben Affleck explaining what “we need to do”.
Slate. Even serious “liberal perspective” slate.com has got its list on, but has made sure it’s not too frothy by saying “repudiating” and adding in some politicians who are letting people know they are giving their Weinstein donations to charity/ensuring their halo is on straight for the cameras.
Metro. The American edition manages to enhance its celebrification with some judgmentalisation: “Some of Hollywood’s best and most mediocre have spoken,” is their take on what this story is really about.