Natalie Raabe

The #DocEmmys Award for Outstanding Interactive Media goes to Reeducated (@NewYorker).

The all-star talks and performances that you love about @NewYorkerFest. This year, (mostly) from the comfort of your couch. nytimes.com/2020/09/08/art…

"The inbox is the new doorstep," and other v. smart newsletter insights from @JessieLiTweets. foliomag.com/email-newslett…

The 21st annual @NewYorkerFest returns October 5th–11th, coming to you wherever in the world you may be. deadline.com/2020/07/new-yo…

Ah, the power. The responsibility! @newyorker remains locked out of our main account. While we wait for @Jack to restore us, I'll be tweeting everything our social team normally would. May I also suggest building a relationship w/ us directly and coming to newyorker dot com.

"At The New Yorker, we’ve learned that truly revelatory work starts with a surprising question—one that reframes how we see the world." More on our new brand campaign (and nearly 200K new subscribers since March): adage.com/article/media/…

“Say Their Names” by @KadirNelson for @NewYorker ➡️ newyorker.com/culture/cover-… 📷by @jungmiwha #georgefloyd #saytheirnames #kadirnelson #blacklivesmatter #kadirnelson #printsnotforsale

16/ We are proud of @ronanfarrow’s reporting, and we stand by it.

15/ We take corrections seriously and would be happy to correct something if it were shown to be wrong. But Ben has not done that here.

14/ We disclosed that the friend could not confirm specifics, except that she had witnessed the meeting between Weinstein and Evans. That the friend later said something different to prosecutors does not make our reporting any less diligent.

13/ Re: Lucia Evans and Harvey Weinstein, Ben acknowledges that her friend did not say anything to us that contradicted Evans’ account, that Weinstein had raped her, and generally supported her story.

12/ Read our story here: newyorker.com/news/news-desk…

11/ At the time, we didn’t have access to Fry’s communications w/ Avenatti, which came out in court records months later. Many other outlets had previously reported on the SARs without citing the source of their material, as is common practice.

10/ This is a bit in the weeds, but the weeds are important here. The complaint establishes Fry searched for restricted SAR 8133 prior to showing any of the docs to Avenatti and came up empty.

9/ The timeline that can be constructed from the court docs support what Fry told us: he realized that a SAR wasn’t in the database where, in his experience, it should have been, before leaking the records.

8/ Ben seems to suggest that Fry lied about his motivations for leaking the SARs. But that’s not established in the court record. The judge came to no conclusion about Fry’s motivation.

7/ In Fry's sentencing hearing, his lawyer even said that “Mr. Fry learned that those SARs may have been walled off when the New Yorker wrote the article by Ronan Farrow who had talked to others who said it's possible that the SARs had been walled off.”

6/ It was not “minimized.” We say in the 4th graf the reports might be restricted, not deleted or removed. We describe the views of 7 former gov officials/experts we interviewed on whether the docs were missing or restricted. This was 200 of the story’s first 500 words.

5/ Ben writes: the records never went “missing...the records were simply put on restricted access...a possibility Mr. Farrow briefly allows for in his story, but minimizes. And Mr. Fry’s leaks had been encouraged and circulated by...Michael Avenatti.”

4/This is just not true. I’d encourage ppl to read thru the court file on Pacer. It doesn’t contradict Ronan’s piece. Our story accurately reflects what was known at the time. And, after reviewing the records that are now available, it still holds up. We continue to stand by it.