Uncategorized
Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments
(JTA) — When the New York Times journalist Jodi Kantor was reporting the 2017 Harvey Weinstein sexual assault story that earned her a Pulitzer prize, the powerful Hollywood producer and his team tried to influence her by using something they had in common: They are both Jewish.
“Weinstein put [Jewishness] on the table and seemed to expect that I was going to have some sort of tribal loyalty to him,” Kantor told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on a video call from the New York Times newsroom. “And that was just not going to be the case.”
Now, that exchange has been immortalized in “She Said,” a new film adaptation of the nonfiction book of the same name by Kantor and her collaborator Megan Twohey that details their investigation into Weinstein’s conduct, which helped launch the #MeToo movement.
The film, directed by Maria Schrader with stars Zoe Kazan as Kantor and Carey Mulligan as Twohey, is an understated thriller that has drawn comparisons to “All the President’s Men” — and multiple subtle but powerful Jewish-themed subplots reveal the way Kantor’s Jewishness arose during and at times intersected with the investigation.
In one scene, the Kantor character notes that a Jewish member of Weinstein’s team tried to appeal to her “Jew to Jew.” In another, Kantor shares a moving moment with Weinstein’s longtime accountant, the child of Holocaust survivors, as they discuss the importance of speaking up about wrongdoing.
Kantor, 47, grew up between New York and New Jersey, the first grandchild of Holocaust survivors — born “almost 30 years to the day after my grandparents were liberated,” she notes. She calls her grandmother Hana Kantor, a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor, her “lodestar.” Kantor — who doesn’t often speak publicly about her personal life, including her Jewish background, which involved some education in Jewish schools — led a segment for CBS in May 2021 on her grandmother and their relationship. Before her journalism career, she spent a year in Israel on a Dorot Fellowship, working with Israeli and Palestinian organizations. She’s now a “proud member” of a Reform synagogue in Brooklyn.
Kantor spoke with JTA about the film’s Jewish threads, the portrayal of the New York Times newsroom and what Zoe Kazan’s performance captures about journalism.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
JTA: How did you feel having Zoe Kazan, who is not Jewish, play you? Kazan has played some notably Jewish characters before, for example in the HBO miniseries “The Plot Against America.”
JK: I feel Zoe’s performance is so sensitive and so layered. What I really appreciate about her performance is that she captures so many of the emotions I was feeling under the surface in the investigation. You know, when you’re a reporter and especially a reporter handling that sensitive a story, it’s your responsibility to present a really smooth professional exterior to the world. At the end of the investigation, I had the job of reading Harvey Weinstein some of the allegations and really confronting him. And in dealing with the victims, I wanted to be a rock for them and it was my job to get them to believe in the investigation. And so on the one hand, you have that smooth, professional exterior, but then below that, of course you’re feeling all the feelings. You’re feeling the power of the material, you’re feeling the urgency of getting the story, you’re feeling the fear that Weinstein could hurt somebody else. You’re feeling the loss that these women are expressing, including over their careers. And so I think Zoe’s performance just communicates that so beautifully.
What Zoe says about the character is that there are elements of me, there are elements of herself, and then there are elements of pure invention because she’s an artist, and that’s what she does.
I think the screenplay gets at a small but significant line of Jewish sub-drama that ran through the investigation. It went like this: Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew. And they’ve done this more recently, as well. There have been times when Harvey Weinstein was trying to approach me “Jew to Jew,” like almost in a tone of “you and I are the same, we understand each other.” We found dossiers later that they had compiled on me and it was clear that they knew that I was the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, and they tried to sort of deploy that. So speaking of keeping things under the surface, I privately thought that was offensive, that he was citing that. But your job as a reporter is to be completely professional. And I wasn’t looking to get into a fight with Weinstein. I just wanted to find out the truth and I actually wanted to be fair to the guy. Anyway, even as he was approaching me “Jew to Jew” in private, he was hiring Black Cube — sort of Israeli private intelligence agents — to try to dupe me. And they actually sent an agent to me, and she posed as a women’s rights advocate. And she was intimating that they were going to pay me a lot of money to appear at a conference in London. Luckily I shooed her away.
To some degree I can’t explain why private Israeli intelligence agents were hired to try to dupe the Hebrew speaking, yeshiva-educated, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. But it’s not my job to explain that! It’s their job to explain why they did that.
Then the theme reappeared with Irwin Reiter, Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years, who kind of became the Deep Throat of the investigation. I quickly figured out that Irwin and I were from the same small world. He was the child of survivors, and had also spent his summers at bungalow colonies in the Catskills just down the road from mine. I don’t bring up the Holocaust a lot. It’s a sacred matter for me, and I didn’t do it lightly. But once I discovered that we did in fact have this really powerful connection in our backgrounds, I did gently sound it with him – I felt that was sincere and real. Because he was making such a critical decision: Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years is still working for the guy by day and he’s meeting with me at night. And I felt like I did need to go to that place with him, saying, “Okay, Irwin, we both know that there are people who talk and there are people who don’t. And we both grew up around that mix of people and what do we think is the difference? And also if you know if you have the chance to act and intervene in a bad situation, are you going to take it?”
We didn’t talk a lot about it, because I raised it and he didn’t want to fully engage. But I always felt like that was under the surface of our conversations, and he made a very brave decision to help us.
That was a very powerful scene in the film, and it felt like a turning point in the movie that kind of got at the ethical core of what was motivating your character. Was that a scene that was important to you personally to include in the film?
What Megan and I want people to know overall is that a small number of brave sources can make an extraordinary difference. When you really look at the number of people who gave us the essential information about Weinstein, it’s a small conference room’s worth of people. Most of them are incredibly brave women, some of whom are depicted, I think, quite beautifully in the film. But there was also Irwin, Weinstein’s accountant of all these years, among them. It’s Megan and my job to build people’s confidence in telling the truth. And as we become custodians of this story for the long term, one of the things we really want people to know is that a tiny group of brave sources, sometimes one source, can make a massive difference. Look at the impact that these people had all around the world.
Did you feel the film captured the New York Times newsroom? There’s a kind of great reverence to the toughness and professionalism in the newspaper business that really came through.
Megan and I are so grateful for the sincerity and professionalism with which the journalism is displayed. There are a lot of on screen depictions of journalists in which we’re depicted as manipulative or doing things for the wrong reasons or sleeping with our sources!
We [as journalists] feel incredible drama in what we do every day. And we’re so grateful to the filmmakers for finding it and sharing it with people. And I know the New York Times can look intimidating or remote as an institution. I hope people really consider this an invitation into the building and into our meetings, and into our way of working and our value system.
And we’re also proud that it’s a vision of a really female New York Times, which was not traditionally the case at this institution for a long time. This is a book and a movie about women as narrators.
“Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew,” Kantor said. (The New York Times)
There have been comparisons made between this movie and “All the President’s Men.” One of the striking differences is that those journalists are two male bachelors running around D.C. And this film has scenes of motherhood, of the Shabbat table, of making lunches. What was it like seeing your personal lives reflected on screen?
It’s really true that the Weinstein investigation was kind of born in the crucible of motherhood and Megan and my attempt to combine work with parenting. On the one hand, it’s the most everyday thing in the world, but on the other hand, you don’t see it actually portrayed on screen that much. We’re really honored by the way that throughout the film you see motherhood and work mixing, I think in a way that is so natural despite our obviously pretty stressful circumstances.
I started out alone on the Weinstein investigation, and I called Megan because movie stars were telling me their secrets but they were very reluctant to go on the record. So I had gone some way in persuading and engaging them, but I was looking to make the absolute strongest case for them. So I called Megan. We had both done years of reporting on women and children. Mine involved the workplace more and hers involved sex crimes more, which is part of why everything melded together so well eventually. I wanted to talk to her about what she had said to female victims in the past. But when I reached her, I could hear that something was wrong. And she had just had a baby, and I had had postpartum depression myself. So we talked about it and I gave her the name of my doctor, who I had seen. Then she got treatment. And she not only gave very good advice on that [initial] phone call, but she joined me in the investigation.
I think the theme is responsibility. Our relationship was forged in a sense of shared responsibility, primarily for the work – once we began to understand the truths about Weinstein, we couldn’t allow ourselves to fail. But also Megan was learning to shoulder the responsibility of being a parent, and I had two kids. And so we started this joint dialogue that was mostly about work, but also about motherhood. And I think throughout the film and throughout the real investigation, we felt those themes melding. It’s totally true that my daughter Tali was asking me about what I was doing. It’s very hard to keep secrets from your kid in a New York City apartment, even though I didn’t tell her everything. And Megan and I would go from discussing really critical matters with the investigation to talking about her daughter’s evolving nap schedule. It really felt like we had to get the story and get home to the kids.
And also, we were reporting on our own cohort. A lot of Weinstein victims were and are women in their 40s. And so even though we were very professional with this and we tried to be very professional with the sources, there was an aspect of looking in the mirror. For example, with Laura Madden, who was so brave about going on the record, it was conversations with her own teenage daughters that helped her make her decision.
We didn’t write about this in our book because it was hard to mix the motherhood stuff with this sort of serious reporter-detective story and all the important facts. And we didn’t want to talk about ourselves too much in the book. But the filmmakers captured something that I think is very true. It feels particular to us but also universal. When Zoe [Kazan] is pushing a stroller and taking a phone call at the same time, I suspect lots of people will identify with that. And what I also really like is the grace and dignity with which that’s portrayed.
It must have been surreal, seeing a Hollywood movie about your investigation of Hollywood.
I think part of the power of the film is that it returns the Weinstein investigation to the producer’s medium, but on vastly different terms, with the women in charge. Megan and I are particularly moved by the portrayals of Zelda Perkins, Laura Madden and Rowena Chiu — these former Weinstein assistants are in many ways at the core of the story. They’re everyday people who made the incredibly brave decision to help us, in spite of everything from breast cancer to legal barriers.
Working with the filmmakers was really interesting. They were really committed to the integrity of the story, and they asked a ton of questions, both large and small. Ranging from the really big things about the investigation to these tiny details. Like in the scene where we go to Gwyneth Paltrow’s house and Megan and I discover we’re practically wearing the same dress — those were the actual white dresses that we wore that day. We had to send them in an envelope to the costume department, and they copied the dresses in Zoe and Carey’s sizes and that’s what they’re wearing. There was a strand of extreme fidelity, but they needed some artistic license because it’s a movie. And the movie plays out in the key of emotion.
—
The post Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Robert Kraft’s new Super Bowl ad about antisemitism already feels dated
Not content with his team’s victories on the football field, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has in recent years taken it upon himself to lease the most expensive airtime on American television.
The Pats may be out of the Super Bowl, but ads from Kraft’s Blue Square Alliance Against Antisemitism (formerly the Foundation to Combat Anti-Semitism) are very much in, and have been for a few years. The campaign has given us two previous Super Bowl spots: one in which Martin Luther King Jr.’s speechwriter Clarence B. Jones urged us to speak out against silence and, last year, as a nice counterpoint, one where Snoop Dogg and Tom Brady yelled at each other. These commercials, unlike ones that the Alliance aired outside of major sporting events, each had their weaknesses in messaging.
The first ad, which primarily spotlighted other hatreds, was perhaps too generic for an organization committed to fighting antisemitism, and its slogan, “stand up to Jewish hate,” left some viewers mystified. The second conveyed essentially nothing, reading as a sort of wan, FCC-vetted homage to a sequence in Do the Right Thing.
Enter the newest campaign, set in an American high school. A boy walks down the hall as classmates — one in a “how do you do fellow kids”-style backwards cap — knock into him. Others make indistinct comments as he walks by. As the boy pulls up to his locker to put in his knapsack, we see what his peers were snickering at: a Post-It note tagged to his bag that reads “DIRTY JEW.”
Did a wormhole to the 1950s just open up? Was this an outtake from The Fabelmans or that old Frank Sinatra PSA? This just could be not feel more disconnected from how antisemitism now operates in school hallways.
High school students, as countless watchdog groups can tell you, are far more creative and subtle now with their Jew hatred. And those more insidious strains are the ones we should be alerting people to.
Kids these days prefer edgelord remarks about cooking 6 million pizzas in five years and slurs like “Zio” and baby killer or they tell you to go to the gas chambers. They recycle memes about globalist control and an Aryan society called “Agartha.” At their most dunderheaded, they don’t scrawl “Dirty Jew” — though they sometimes say it — they go to that old standby: the swastika. In 2024, the ADL reported 860 incidents in K-12 schools, and though their metrics for antisemitism are at times controversial, 52% of instances involved a swastika. (If you’re a hater of a certain income, like Ye, you can even have swastikas advertised covertly during the Big Game; Kraft’s crew could have stuck it to him by including one on the sticky.)
I get why they did it like this — you want to make your point in 30 seconds. But if you follow instances of antisemitism in schools or online — and it’s kind of an occupational hazard for me — you know this is not how today’s animus is typically expressed. And that can have a kind of unfortunate ripple effect.
If this was meant for the kids, they will laugh at how alien and out-of-touch it seems. And with that, there’s a risk that antisemitism will seem like a manufactured problem.
What happens next in the commercial holds true to what we teach kids about being an “upstander,” rather than a bystander. Another student covers the offensive sticky note with a blue one, and then, like the legendary King of Denmark with his yellow star — or Van Jones with Kraft’s trademark blue square lapel pin — sticks a blue sticky on his own chest.
However noble the intentions of the ad may be, in a world of Groypers, this is bait. I can already anticipate the memes. I also find it doubtful that blue square pins, available on the campaign’s website and the icon behind Kraft’s organization’s rebrand, will become 2026’s hot Gen Z accessory, the new Labubus.
That the message misses the mark is disappointing because Kraft’s organization previously had some quite powerful non-Super Bowl ads, some of which have won awards. The strongest showed a boy and his father in a truck, with the dad confronting his son about a social media post where he said “Hitler was right.”
The dialogue is on-the-nose, but gets at a real phenomenon: Teens, even if raised right, can still be radicalized by the internet and emboldened by its anonymity. (As in the case of the alleged Jackson synagogue arsonist, we know that radicalization can happen fast.) “You got something you want to say, get out of the truck and say it to their faces” the dad tells his son, and the camera pulls focus to what’s outside their windshield: Jews leaving synagogue. And then, text, a solid statistic of a real phrase circulating on the internet: “‘Hitler was right’ was posted over 70,000 times last year.”
That ad still hits me in the gut, and serves as a bridge for two audiences: parents and their kids.
The Post-It ad doesn’t do that.
It tells reasonable older people what they already know: Overt, unambiguous antisemitism is bad. It tells kids that adults don’t get what they’re dealing with. It tells people on the cusp, or already fully immersed, in conspiracies of Jewish control that Jews have unlimited resources, and a limited understanding of the facts on the ground.
If Kraft is committed to throwing money at a very real problem, he should at least get his money’s worth.
The post Robert Kraft’s new Super Bowl ad about antisemitism already feels dated appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
South Carolina Republican Senate Candidate Floats Antisemitic Conspiracies in Effort to Boost Long-Shot Campaign
Paul Dans, candidate for US Senate, speaks during the Anderson County Republican Party Charlie Kirk Tribute at the Civic Center of Anderson, South Carolina, Sept. 15, 2025. Photo: USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
Paul Dans, a lawyer and Republican candidate for US Senate in South Carolina, has boosted antisemitic conspiracy theories online, suggesting that high-ranking Jews have imported drugs and implemented an extermination campaign against white people.
“The ELITES call us ‘goy cattle’ and sent OxyContin into our communities for a reason. EPSTEIN files confirm WHITE GENOCIDE and WHITE HATE is not a conspiracy but an operation in progress,” Dans posted on X on Monday.
Goy is a term for a gentile, a non-Jew.
Dans, who describes himself as an “America 1st warrior” and a counterweight to entrenched Washington, DC establishment interests, has portrayed himself as an ardent opponent of longstanding US foreign policy. He has been critical of what he calls America’s entanglement in “endless wars” in the Middle East and Ukraine.
”I’m America first and not Israel first, not Ukraine first. We always have to ask what is in the foreign policy interest of the United States citizen. How are we helping the people back home thrive and be safe?” Dans said during an October 2025 interview with South Carolina local news.
Notably, Dans is also a former director of the embattled Heritage Foundation and was the chief architect of Project 2025 — a sprawling political playbook which outlines how to overhaul the federal government to support a conservative policy agenda. The Heritage Foundation has found itself embroiled in mounting controversy in recent months after its president, Kevin Roberts, issued a passionate defense of antisemitic podcaster Tucker Carlson. Carlson had elicited backlash after hosting a chummy interview with the Holocaust-denying, anti-Jewish streamer Nick Fuentes.
Dans also appeared on “The Tucker Carlson Show” in November 2025, in which he and the podcaster criticized US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for his steadfast support for Israel, insinuating that Graham focuses more on uplifting Israel than the US.
Dans’ status as the mastermind of Project 2025 indicates that he likely has significant influence and reach within the Republican establishment.
Critics argue that Dans’ comments are part of a broader trend of long-shot political hopefuls using antisemitism to draw attention to their campaigns and galvanize fringe elements of the far right. James Fishback, a hedge fund manager who recently launched a campaign for the Republican nomination in the Florida gubernatorial race, has drawn significant attention by repeatedly invoked anti-Israel conspiracy theories.
Dans still remains a heavy underdog in the primary competition. However, some polls show that he’s gaining ground. An internal poll from the Dans campaign last fall showed the insurgent swelling from 9.2 percent in June 2025 to 22.1 percent in September among voters. Graham still holds a commanding lead with 46.3 percent of the vote, a slight decline from 49.5 percent during the same timeframe.
Uncategorized
Trump Demands $1 Billion From Harvard University Amid Dispute Over Campus Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before boarding Marine One to depart for Quantico, Virginia, from the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
US President Donald Trump has demanded that Harvard University pay $1 billion to settle the federal government’s claim that it failed to address campus antisemitism and governed the institution in accordance with far-left viewpoints.
“This should be a Criminal, not Civil event, and Harvard will have to live with the consequence of their wrongdoings. In any event, this case will continue until justice is served. Dr. Alan Garber, the President of Harvard, has done a terrible Job of rectifying a very bad situation for his institution, and, more importantly, America, itself,” Trump wrote in a post on the Truth Social media platform. “We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University.”
The Trump administration canceled some $2.26 billion in federal contracts and grants to Harvard in April, citing its alleged violation of the civil rights of Jewish students during a wave of antisemitic incidents to which, according to Jewish advocacy groups, the university failed to respond with sufficient disciplinary actions and other measures. Trump followed the move by proposing to reform Harvard, as well as all of higher education, based on ideas that date back to the advent of the Reagan Revolution — including the abolition of admissions policies which privilege minority and women applicants and the promotion viewpoint diversity, which aims to amplify conservative voices while attenuating the influence of far-left faculty and administrators.
Trump’s social media post on Tuesday contradicted an earlier report by the New York Times which said that the US president no longer expects Harvard to pay cash to terminate the dispute with his administration and restore the totality of its federal funding. Most of that money, according to The Harvard Crimson, was restored to the university by a federal court ruling in July, but Harvard, which is running its biggest budget deficit since the Covid-19 pandemic, is working to figure out a way to secure the release of the remainder without conceding to Trump’s demands.
“Why hasn’t the Fake News New York Times adjusted its phony article on the corruption and antisemitism which has taken place at Harvard,” Trump posted on Tuesday, criticizing the Times for what he said was a false representation of his position. “They never call for facts, or factchecks, because the Times is a corrupt, unprincipled, and pathetic vehicle of the left. They wrote only negatively about in the last Election, and I won in a landslide.”
Other universities have decided that settling with Trump is preferable to fighting him.
In July, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment. US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the details of the settlement enacted a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, she added that Columbia agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI] programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
That same month, Brown University settled for $50 million and pledged to enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism.
Per the agreement, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
The Trump administration is fighting on to achieve a similar victory over Harvard, and has, to that end, filed an appeal of the ruling which restored Harvard’s federal funding.
In the decision, US federal judge Allison Burroughs said that the Trump acted unconstitutionally, charging that he had used antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Burroughs went on to argue that the federal government violated Harvard’s free speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment and that it was the job of courts to “ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations.”
Harvard has told multiple outlets it is “confident that the Court of Appeals will affirm the district court’s opinion.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.