Talk:Gaslighting/Archive 4

Pop culture: Harvey Weinstein

The two entries regarding Harvey Weinstein related Pop cultue events do not appear to be verifiable/reliable examples of gaslighting as written .

1. This first entry is based on the Ronan Farrow quote "I left the meeting feeling like I was being gaslighted by my own employer". There is no RS, reliable third party, saying he was gaslighted. What is known/undisputed and reported in multiple RS is that NBC decommissioned Farrow's investigative journalism project, didn't block Farrow from taking it to Vanity Fair, and the investigation/article won a Pulitzer price and was instrumental in exposing Weinstein as a sexual predator.

There are no RS reporting that NBC hired es-Mossad agents or tried to intimidate the authors or tried to discredit the work. Vanity Fair also had issues and would not publish the article initially - they did however fund additional work and ultimately published the article. NBC may have made questionable and/or biased journalistic decisions (as have all the Networks) when they backed away from the article for business reasons, but this is not gaslighting.

In 2017, the investigative journalists (Ronan Farrow & Rich McHugh) who helped to expose movie producer Harvey Weinstein as a serial sex offender, claimed that they were targeted with gaslighting techniques by people within the NBC television network (e.g. discrediting, false accusations, removing support, legal threats), and related acts of intimidation such as being followed by ex-Mossad agents.[32][33]

2. Weinstein granted interviews to journalists to tout his contributions to society including helping produce a charity concert that raised $100 million for the 9/11 first responders through the Robin Hood Foundation. A public relations firm countered with a press release on twitter signed by 23 secual abuse victims saying that he was gaslighting and this was picked up by a few media outlets. There is no RS disputing the claims that Wienstein made (e.g., about 9/11 fundraising). There is no RS claiming that these statements were gaslighting. It's very possible that Weinstein made significant contributions to society and was also sexual predator - these are not mutually exclusive actions. We want to be encyclopedic and not get caught up in a public relations firm's fact shaping tactics.

In 2019, 23 of the women who Weinstein is alleged to have abused made a joint statement saying that he was 'trying to gaslight society'[34] by claiming that he had actually been a pioneer in empowering women within the movie industry.[34]

Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there are three sources used all of which are RS (two mainstream media, Vanity Fair magazine and The Independent newspaper, and one academic source 'The Journalism Behind Journalism' published by Routledge). In your argument, and I feel argument is the operative word, you add information which is not mentioned or referred to in the original edits. It may or may not be true. Please feel free to add it to the appropriate Wikipedia article if you think it is accurate. The sources I have used, which relate to and back up the statements made, list a series of gaslighting techniques and explicitly identify them as gaslighting. They are strong sources.RickyBennison (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. That is helpful.

So, I'm not questioning the integrity of Vanity Fair as a RS (for example), I'm questioning the context of the text that was posted - its first party opinion and some allegations that don't hold upon closer examination. If Vanity Fair reported that Charles Manson (first party) said he was innocent and was being gaslighted (general non-specific statement), we can't apply that to this article and say that Charles Manson IS innocent and he WAS gaslighted.

If the most that can be taken from RS is the the first party alleges certain acts and the first party feels these acts are gaslighting, then its a weak addition to the article at best.

And if we look at some of the specifics such as the ex-mossad agents, for example, there is nothing in the RS that alleges or confirms that NBC hired "ex-mossad agents". As far as I know, there isn't any RS suggesting NBC did this.

The entry needs work before including it in the article.Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, may I ask whether your point about the VF article is that it is written by McHugh and so could count as a primary source, meaning it is best avoided? The 'Journalism behind Journalism' secondary source by Gina Baleria & Routledge, however, substantiates the statements made about gaslighting, including the ex-Mossad agents reference. It could be clarified that the source states the agents were operating at the behest of Weinstein though and not NBC studios. So 'and related acts of intimidation by Weinstein's network such as being followed by ex-Mossad agents.' might be clearer.RickyBennison (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the VF is primary sources as is the report on the press release from the 23 accusers. Baleria only makes two passing references to gaslighting in her book - once to point out tha McHuge said it (most likely from VF) and once to repeat part of the quote from VF (sames words, same order)without attribution. Baleria doesn't discuss gaslighting in her book - its just an incidental mention. Hope that helps.Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is constructive to repost the same edit, with little modification, for the fifth time while we are discussing it here. I looked for more authoritative reporting on the "gaslighting" aspect of the Harvey Weinstein story, including the references you used, and drafted/posted a neutral point of view representing all those sources. It shows that the Farrow's claims are unsubstantiated allegations and that the hiring of a high end private investigation agency was still misrepresented and sensationalized when it is referred to as "ex-mossad" agents - implying that it was rogue and illegal - which it was not. While the edit is now clearly NPV, I still don't think any of this belongs in this article. Weinstein is a story of intimidation, and an incidental mention of "gaslighting" doesn't change that.

Is the current write up a fair compromise, or should it all be scrapped? Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It should not be scrapped. I thought you were satisfied with the disambiguation in regard to NBC/Weinstein's network. Otherwise I would have continued to discuss here. Your edit as stands removes too much of the original edit, which was a good edit. It relayed the facts plainly and with reliable sources. The edit as is makes quite bold statements and then supports them with somewhat ambiguous statements which a casual reader would need to unpick: they could easily be misinterpreted. In regard to the ex-Mossad agents reference, which the source states as former Mossad agents, I do not see the point in changing this to 'retained the services of intelligence/espionage firm, Black Cube'. Why complicate it? Also, whether it is legal to hire these people or not isn't the point. The point is that they were hired to 'follow' the journalists which is an obvious statement of threat as well as monitoring (which may well be illegal). So if the edit could be made clearer and the explicit references to gaslighting also re-added (i.e. it was described as gaslighting by those on the receiving end of it) then that would be beneficial I feel. I don't want to give too much specific advice but if you want to post new potential edits here and we can run through them line by line then that is fine by me (although it may take a while). I will also post here.RickyBennison (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair. Thanks. I agree that would be best.

"The edit as is makes quite bold statements and then supports them with somewhat ambiguous statements" Can you specific about what you mean?

"claimed that they were targeted with gaslighting techniques by people within the NBC television network (e.g. discrediting, false accusations, removing support, legal threats)" The RS doesn't suggest that "discrediting, false accusations, removing support, legal threats" are gaslighting. It listed these items in addition to being gaslighted - which is undefined and only mentioned in passing, and not discussed. And it is only an allegation - "claimed".

"related acts of intimidation by Weinstein's network such as being followed by ex-Mossad agents" The RS mentions Black Cube investigators followed him. The Wikipedia article on Black Cube suggested that they collect information on victims and reporters to compile psychological profiles. Wouldn't it be better to be specific? Profiling and intimidation are different.

"23 of the women who Weinstein is alleged to have abused made a joint statement saying that he was 'trying to gaslight society" This gets confusing - is this entry about NBC gaslighting Farrow , Weinstein gaslighting society, Weinstein gaslighting Farrow, Weinstein gaslighting the victims, or just everyone being gaslighted.

Gaslighting is an overused term - a buzz word - and one goal of an article is to help readers better understand what it really means - not add to the confusion. As I said before, this in not an classic example of gaslighting.

Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so lets start simply. The original opening line 'In 2017, the investigative journalists (Ronan Farrow & Rich McHugh) who helped to expose movie producer Harvey Weinstein as a serial sex offender, claimed that they were targeted with gaslighting techniques by people within the NBC television network (e.g. discrediting, false accusations, removing support, legal threats), and related acts of intimidation such as being followed by ex-Mossad agents.' you propose 'permanantly' changing to 'In 2017, Harvey Weinstein orchestrated extraordinary efforts to undermine the perceptions and reality of women he sexually preyed upon, the journalist's investigating their stories, and the public. He hired Lisa Bloom, the high profile attorney who represented women sexually abused by Bill Cosby and women who accused Bill O’Reilly, and Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, for her expertise, including intimate knowledge of how to prey on the vulnerabilities of sexual abuse survivors.' So you propose focusing in on Weinstein, and immediately associating him with Bloom and three other names. Bloom can be added but the other three names should be dropped. They are not directly relevant enough and just deflect attention away from the main core group who are involved in the situation, such as it is. The Bloom mention is workable because it demonstrates Weinstein's network at work. The more obscure the connections the harder the reader has to work in order to understand what is being said.

Ex-Mossad agents should be referred to directly. This is in keeping with the overwhelming majority of sources. Some then go on to mention Black Cube, granted, but it is the reference to them being ex-Mossad which best connotes significance to the reader and that is why it is the most widely used term of reference. I will continue to work with that term. I would also like to continue to use the term followed, as per the source. It is of course dependent on the specifics of the situation, but following someone can easily be an act of intimidation as well as surveillance. I think it is reasonable to assume that as top-level agents they had the choice about whether they were noticed or not when doing their following. I think there is a clear suggestion of threat from the act. One source I came across did mention the agents in the context of Rose McGowan and gaslighting. She described her being continuously lied to and undermined as feeling like she was in the movie Gaslight. That might be something we can mention later but for now best to keep it simple I think.

The NBC studios reference. You write: 'Journalist Ronan Farrow has alleged that NBC did not air his investigation of Weinstein because Weinstein threatened to disclose the sexual indiscretions of NBC's The Today Show host Matt Lauer and MSNBC’s president, Phil Griffin.' Is it good detail but I just feel there are again a lot of names. Perhaps just leave it for now though. Perhaps it could be added 'Farrow has described his treatment by his employer at NBC as being gas lit' or similar. Reported direct usage of the term is significant and really demonstrates how the term is currently applied which is obviously essential for an encyclopedia.

In regard to this original line: 'In 2019, 23 of the women who Weinstein is alleged to have abused made a joint statement saying that he was 'trying to gaslight society' by claiming that he had actually been a pioneer in empowering women within the movie industry.' I think they mean society broadly construed i.e. the public. It is an obvious reference to Weinstein's PR campaign trying to paint himself as a heroic victim and not a villain. So to replace that line with: 'Weinstein granted interviews to the New York Post to tout his contributions to society including helping women advance in Hollywood and his work on a charity concert that raised $100M for the 9/11 first responders through the Robin Hood Foundation.' just adds ambiguity. The new line, if kept, should be used in conjunction as a way of elucidating how he claimed to be a pioneer in empowering women etc. But there is a question of detail. Is it too much detail for this article. RickyBennison (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

user:Wiki-psyc ? NB: I will be editing again soon.RickyBennison (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

user:RickyBennison Thanks for the reminder. I agree much of what we are discussing here is too detailed and I'd add, belongs in the Harvey Weinstein and/or Ronan Farrow articles. For the Gaslighting article I would like to propose a summary statement only with links to the Weinstein and Farrow article. I would propose the summary focus on gaslighting (making someone seriously doubt their reality) and focus on the most notable, most significant, and most proven/undisputed aspects of gaslighting in this broad story - that would not be about the unverified and disputed tribulations of a journalist. Weinstein hired top attorneys, a high profile victims attorney and and intelligence agency (or ex-mkousad if you prefer) to change the perception of the victims (to future employers, and the pubic). Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Pop Culture: Frasier

I've just been watching the 16th episode of the first series of the popular US sitcom _Frasier_. At around 01:50 the titular character's producer explains that she was 'gaslighting' him as a joke. I was surprised to hear the word used without explanation in a show that was aired in 1993, but I'm not sure if that would be a helpful addition to the pop-culture section of the article? Premium-content (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There are occasional uses of the term in books and theater going back to the 1960's. All these passing mentions are not encyclopedic. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

personality traits

@Unique-individual Recently you added a paper that talks about personality traits and gaslighting. Can we get some more info on which traits predict gaslighting behavior? Megaman en m (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Gaslighting is abusive.

Children try to manipulate parents at an early age, and marketers aim to manipulate consumers, but gaslighting involves a pattern of abusive behaviors with the intent not just to influence someone, but to control them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gaslighting 3-18-22 Breakwater05 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)