For more than 20 years, we have been hearing charges and counter-charges concerning alleged sexual abuse by Woody Allen of Dylan Farrow, a daughter he adopted with Mia Farrow. Dylan, now 28, is an artist and writer living in Florida under a different name.
The charges were never resolved. But now Allen has been effectively accused of child abuse again in the pages of The New York Times, in a harsh and deeply misguided column by Nicholas Kristof, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner known for his support of human rights and children in such dangerous places as Chad and Darfur.
On Feb. 1, with no more legal evidence than what was available 20 years ago, Kristof wrote in his column, "When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?" The column was prompted by Allen's receipt of the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement at the Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 12.
Kristof used his Op-Ed column to showcase excerpts from a letter Dylan Farrow sent him, in which she told him she has been "traumatized for more than two decades by what took place." Kristof doesn't write "by what she said took place." He takes her at her word. And he published her entire letter, more than 900 words, on his blog.
He argues that while the accusations against Allen didn't lead to a criminal charge, we ought to use a lower standard when giving out awards. If there's even a chance that Allen did what Dylan Farrow claims, don't give him an award.
The problem is that doubt about the allegations extends both ways. Kristof acknowledges that the evidence is ambiguous. But he writes as if Allen had been found guilty. And the consequences of calling someone an "alleged child molester" do far more harm than denying someone an award.
This is the second time in recent weeks that a Times columnist has been accused of unfairly attacking an individual. The last time it was Bill Keller, who on Jan. 12 wrote a column criticizing a woman with metastatic breast cancer.
Kristof–who won two Pulitzer Prizes and has been a finalist for the award six other times–should know better than to attack Allen in this way. Why did he do it?
Kristof gives us part of the explanation. He acknowledges that he, Mia Farrow, and Dylan's brother Ronan Farrow are his friends, and that's how Dylan approached him.
* * *
The legal case that led Kristof, the Farrows, and Allen to this point is complex and difficult to summarize, but in August, 1992, after Allen and Farrow broke off a 12-year relationship, Allen filed suit against Dylan's mother, Mia Farrow, seeking custody of their three children, including Dylan. The Connecticut State Police said they were investigating a case involving Allen, and Farrow's lawyer said the case concerned suspicion of sexual abuse of one of the children.
Allen struck back, holding a news conference to deny the charge that he had abused 7-year-old Dylan. While this was happening, Allen announced that he had fallen in love with Farrow's then 21-year-old daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, whom Farrow adopted with her second husband, Andre Previn.
On May 4, 1993, the New York Times reported that the doctor who headed a police team investigating the charges of child abuse "theorized that the child either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother, Mia Farrow," according to a sworn statement.
The Times wrote that "Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child's accounts had 'a rehearsed quality.' At one point, he said she told him, 'I like to cheat on my stories.'"
Shortly after that article appeared, a New York State appeals court upheld a lower-court ruling giving custody of the three children to Farrow, and it limited Allen's rights to visit them. According to the Times, the judge "said the sex abuse findings were inconclusive, but he would err on the side of caution and bar visitation between Dylan and Mr. Allen until mental health professionals convinced him that it was permissible."
All of that occurred more than 20 years ago. In the years since, Allen has continued to make movies. Interest in the case had diminished until now.
Kristof is single-handedly responsible for bringing the case back into the news. And the only apparent explanation for why he used his platform at The New York Times to do so is that he was doing a favor for a friend.
Kristof discloses that he and Mia Farrow are friends, but he doesn't tell us how close they are, or how effusively he has praised her in print. "I'm full of admiration for her courage and dedication" in service of her humanitarian work in Darfur, he wrote on his blog in 2008. She will be "standing up for the people of Darfur when the international community has forsaken them…In my book, she's a gold medalist." (He does not acknowledge the friendship in a note he wrote introducing Dylan's letter on his blog.)
Columnists are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to print falsehoods. While Kristof technically does not accuse Allen of molestation, he creates an overwhelming impression that Allen is guilty. To revive allegations two decades after they were made, with no new legal evidence to support them, is a clear violation of journalistic ethics, not to mention fairness and common sense.
In his introduction to Dylan's letter, Kristof writes, "So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them."
The Golden Globe award ignites debate only if Allen is guilty. If he isn't, there is no debate to ignite. Kristof has effectively tried Allen and found him guilty based on one person's account–a violation of journalism ethics and fairness, and a disservice to readers.
His claim that we haven't heard from Dylan isn't right either. She was quoted extensively in an article in October, 2013 in Vanity Fair. Dylan "speaks on the record for the first time about the alleged incident," the magazine wrote. Dylan made many of the same claims she later made in the letter that Kristof published.
After the Golden Globe award was given to Allen, Robert B. Weide, who produced a PBS documentary on Woody Allen, wrote a long piece at The Daily Beast reviewing the allegations involving Allen. "I knew Woody—was friendly with him, but we weren’t so close that anyone could rightfully accuse me of being in his pocket," Weide wrote. Readers can judge for themselves whether Weide is too defensive of Allen, but I found his piece a far more balanced and objective report than Kristof's.
He begins by noting the many errors and misconceptions that have been repeated in the telling of the Farrow-Allen story. This is only part of his list:
#1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.
#2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.
#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.
#4: Woody and Mia were married. False.
#5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.
#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False….
Weide's piece was published before Dylan Farrow's letter, but he says that he "found nothing in Dylan's letter that hasn't previously been alleged" in Vanity Fair, and "nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast."
Nobody None of us knows what happened–or didn't happen–between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow. I don't have a hunch or an opinion about who is right.
If this post sounds as though it's tilted toward Woody Allen, it's only because I'm trying to explain Kristof's error–an error I cannot understand. As a columnist, Kristof is entitled to his opinion. But he's not entitled to discredit Allen unless he has evidence in hand.
The practice of good journalism does not stop at a columnist's door.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply