2016 United States presidential election

The 2016 United States presidential election appears in the book as a recurring chronological reference rather than as a narrated campaign or voting event. Its political context is most visible in the account of public reactions to Donald Trump’s remarks about women: those remarks had already prompted women to express frustration, and the later reporting on powerful men’s conduct met a similarly charged public moment. The election thus helps locate the atmosphere in which questions of gender, power, and public accountability became harder for newsrooms and audiences to set aside.

Political Context and Public Reaction

After Bill O’Reilly’s departure from Fox, editors at The New York Times judged that women’s frustration over revelations about powerful men might create an unusual opening for candid accounts. The book compares that response with the reaction to Trump’s remarks, but does not present the election itself as the cause of the reporting or describe its result in this narrative passage. The connection is one of political atmosphere: public anger and the possibility of speaking openly were already present when editors considered how to investigate abuse beyond a single prominent case.

The Investigative Chronology Around the Election

The investigations grew out of a longer sequence of warnings and missed opportunities. In December 2014, Emily Nestor told colleagues about Harvey Weinstein’s conduct during a temporary job in the company’s Los Angeles office; executives recorded her account. In July 2015, Irwin Reiter secretly showed board member Lance Maerov a memo about Nestor, but Weinstein later secured a new contract. That November, Lauren O’Connor submitted a broader complaint describing conduct she said affected women and the company culture. These episodes precede the election and show that the underlying information and internal efforts to respond had accumulated over years, rather than emerging from a single political moment.

After the O’Reilly story, Rebecca Corbett asked Jodi Kantor to investigate both other powerful men and the system that made harassment difficult to address, including the role of settlements. Megan Twohey contributed a way of approaching potential sources that framed speaking to reporters as a possible means of protecting others. The book presents those editorial choices as part of the reporting process; it does not claim that the election initiated them.

Aftermath and Significance

The Weinstein investigation’s publication in October 2017 was followed by a surge of tips and disclosures. Women in many occupations shared accounts, and the #MeToo wave brought further public testimony without the prolonged persuasion required in the investigation. The book describes a feedback between disclosure and accountability: visible consequences for powerful men gave more women confidence that speaking might lead to action. This later wave supplies the clearest contrast with the earlier political atmosphere—the election-era references mark a period of public frustration, while the subsequent disclosures show that frustration becoming sustained reporting, collective speech, and institutional responses.

The election is therefore a contextual marker, not a developed subject of political analysis in the account presented here. The book’s index lists it at several points, but the passages connecting that period to the harassment investigations focus on public reaction and the conditions for disclosure, not on campaign events or election mechanics.