I don't want to do journo threads all day, but there are a lot of "everybody" knew cases where it seems like that in retrospect and that doesn't mean a) it's true, b) that means it was publishable. Ben is not a journalist, and this is not an uncommon armchair quarterback-y take. https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1360237317114445826

Also don't know what he's talking about in some of these cases, I feel like we knew about Cuomo and nursing homes as soon as it happened, and Hunter Biden has proven to be a non-story, but I digress...

So let's talk about John Weaver specifically and how sexual harassment stories get reporter. Let's assume that what Ben is saying is true and everyone on the right knew Weaver was gay, etc.

And keep in mind that knowing Weaver is gay does not mean knowing Weaver was preying on minors. (Though there are homophobes on the right who like to conflate the two.)

To what extent is Weaver being gay a story? Well, inamsuch as he's openly supported policies that harm gay people, it probably is. But generally speaking, journos are not supposed to out people. (My former boss Nick Denton would disagree, but that's another thread.)

But there is a kind of journalistic exception of the closeted person is actively harming gay people. Then add to this that Weaver was harassing minors. Then it's a sexual harassment story, and whether Weaver is gay doesn't matter.

Then any inclination anyone would have to refrain from outing him on an ethical basis kind of goes down the tubes. So then it's a question of who knew what when? I suspect a lot of people on the right did know or had heard that Weaver is gay.

But for reasons articulated above, there may or may not be a compelling reason to make that public. Let's say there is, though. You still have to corroborate that. And that means finding sources with *direct* knowledge of the situation.

At least journalistically, secondhand stories don't by themselves meet the threshold for corroboration. Even if there are a million of them. You still need direct sources. Witnesses. Victims.

This is part of the reason why sexual assault stories are so difficult to report. Victims often don't want to talk and there are no witnesses except the victim. In Weaver's case the stories came out because a victim came forward and a had a chain of messages.

Which allowed other victims to come forward, and eventually, someone who was a minor when Weaver approached him. This happens a lot with these kind of stories. One person goes public and then the floodgates open.

I've chased sexual assault stories before and particular when the predator is powerful and can affect the victims professionally, it's hard to get people to talk, even off the record. They're afraid. And it's not enough to have a friend they talked to as a source.

In fact, it's unethical to report around the victim and force them into public against their will.

All of which is to say, a lot of things had to happen for this to get out at all. It's not as simple as "people knew" and it's in the Times the next day. But people who did know and did not speak up still have moral culpability. That is a question outside of the journalistic one.