David McCraw

David McCraw’s role in the account comes into focus at a critical point in the New York Times investigation of Harvey Weinstein: the final legal and editorial review before publication. As the Times attorney, he advised the journalists confronting the risk of a challenge from Weinstein. His work was not to decide what the reporting showed, but to help the paper assess how it could publish that reporting fairly and withstand legal pressure.

Role in the Newsroom

McCraw was among six people gathered in Dean Baquet’s office as the investigation approached publication. Baquet held ultimate authority over the paper’s decisions, while Rebecca Corbett had guided the project from its beginning and Matt Purdy remained closely involved. Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey brought a different kind of responsibility: they had assembled the information, built relationships with sources, and would write the story under their bylines. McCraw’s place in this group was distinct. He attended as the paper’s lawyer, tasked with keeping the Times out of legal trouble, and the others took his advice seriously.

The question before the group was how long to give Weinstein to respond to the allegations. Corbett argued for forty-eight hours, partly so the journalists could demonstrate that they had acted properly and avoid leaving him an opening to accuse them of unfairness. Baquet worried that a longer period would let Weinstein run out the clock. The decision was therefore both practical and legal: the reporters wanted to move toward publication without making the process vulnerable to an avoidable fairness objection. By the following evening, Megan called Lanny Davis to say that she and Jodi wanted to speak with Weinstein and his team at one o’clock the next day.

Review Before Publication

As the article moved through its final stages, the work of legal review became part of its construction. Only one journalist could log in to the story file at a time, so Jodi, Megan, Rebecca, and the second editor Rory Tolan revised it in sequence. They were trying to settle on exact language, and they rewrote passages in response to McCraw’s recommendations to make the story more legally robust. His contribution thus reached beyond a yes-or-no judgment about publication: it entered the phrasing and revision of the article itself.

The process also reveals the distinction between the reporters’ evidence and the attorney’s function. The reporters had gathered the material and maintained the source relationships; McCraw advised on the legal exposure created by the way that material was presented. In the newsroom, those responsibilities met in repeated editing. The aim was not simply to make the story forceful, but to ensure that its wording could meet the paper’s standards for accuracy and fairness while the publication deadline drew close.

Responding to Legal Pressure

When Weinstein’s attorney, Charles Harder, sent an eighteen-page letter criticizing the reporting and demanding that the Times preserve documents, the journalists met again in Baquet’s office. They reached a unified decision not to change any element of the story in response to the letter. They remained open to evidence Weinstein might offer, but concluded that capitulating to the demands in Harder’s letter was not justified. McCraw reassured them that the law protected the paper and that the threats described in the letter did not alter the legal position they faced.

At 3:33 p.m., McCraw sent the reporters his three-paragraph reply to Harder. Against the letter’s extensive complaints about journalistic technique, he stated: “Any notion that we have dealt unfairly with Mr. Weinstein is simply false, and you can be sure that any article we do will meet our customary standards for accuracy and fairness.” The response asserted the paper’s standards without treating the criticism as a reason to withdraw the investigation or revise its conclusions.

McCraw also turned the document-preservation demand back toward Weinstein and his businesses. He asked for assurances that they had secured relevant records, including the press representative’s and Weinstein’s phone, email, and text records; complaints about improper workplace behavior; and settlements with employees. The demand mattered because it made the consequences of taking the dispute into court reciprocal: if Weinstein sought the journalists’ materials, the Times would seek records bearing on his treatment of women. McCraw’s legal reply therefore addressed not only the paper’s own preservation duties but also the possibility that litigation would expose materials on the other side.

Significance in the Publication Decision

The Times did make one concession: it granted Weinstein more time. A two-week delay was ruled out, but the journalists accepted the earlier request for forty-eight hours because a shorter period could strengthen the claim that the paper had treated him unfairly. The final deadline was set for one o’clock on Thursday, October 5. McCraw’s advice helped the group navigate that balance between allowing a response and refusing to let legal threats dictate the story’s substance.

The evidence presents McCraw as a consequential adviser within a collective decision, not as the sole author of the publication choice. Baquet retained ultimate authority; Corbett, Purdy, Kantor, and Twohey each held responsibilities shaped by their roles in the reporting and editing. McCraw’s influence lay in the legal review, the revisions intended to protect the article, and the reply that defended the paper’s fairness while demanding preservation of Weinstein-related records. His contribution helped the newsroom move toward publication without confusing a forceful legal threat with evidence that the reporting itself should change.