NBC NEWS WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION

On November 22, 2017, a member of the Human Resources department for the News Division 1
received an email from a woman stating that she had a serious concern to report. News HR immediately
reported the matter to a senior employment lawyer at NBCUniversal (the “Company”), the corporate
parent of the News Division. The complainant ultimately agreed to be interviewed by News HR and the
same senior NBCUniversal employment lawyer on November 27, 2017. During that interview, the
complainant alleged that Matt Lauer had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace
with her on several occasions in 2014. The interview team found her detailed allegations to be credible.

On November 28, 2017, Lauer was interviewed by senior members of NBCUniversal corporate
HR and Legal. During the interview, Lauer admitted to engaging in sexual activity with the complainant.
The Company determined that his conduct violated Company policy and terminated Lauer’s
employment on November 28, effective immediately. Within the two weeks after Lauer’s termination
was announced publicly by NBC News on November 29, 2017, the Company received information about
three additional women, who each alleged that Lauer had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in
the workplace with them in 2000, 2001 and 2007, respectively. 2

On November 30, 2017, Steve Burke, CEO of NBCUniversal, instructed Kim Harris, NBCUniversal
General Counsel, 3 to assemble and supervise a team of experienced lawyers and HR professionals from
outside the News Division to investigate whether: (1) any current members of NBC News or Today Show
leadership, News HR or anyone else in a position of authority in the News Division had any information
about inappropriate workplace behavior by Lauer prior to November 27, 2017, and, if so, what, if
anything, was done to address the behavior; (2) there have been other incidents of inappropriate
workplace behavior in the News Division, and if so, whether such incidents were reported and
addressed appropriately; and (3) employees in the News Division are comfortable reporting concerns
about workplace behavior, and if not, why not.

The ultimate goal of this investigation was to understand whether current News Division
leadership addresses inappropriate workplace behavior promptly and appropriately, and to determine
whether there is a need to make improvements in the News Division to create a more respectful climate
and to increase the willingness of employees to report concerns.

The investigation team consulted with two outside law firms about this investigation. Both firms
have concluded that the investigation team took appropriate investigative steps and that the factual
findings and related conclusions in this report appear to have been carefully and thoughtfully drawn
from the evidence available.

A summary of the fact-gathering conducted as part of the investigation, our findings and our
recommendations to improve the workplace environment in the News Division follow.

1
The terms “News Division” or “News” include NBC News and MSNBC.
2
The investigation team is aware, based on media reports and the statements of the first complainant
interviewed, that there could be additional women who have complaints about Lauer’s workplace behavior that
have not yet come forward. The investigation team remains interested in hearing from these women and others
who may have related information to share. As a result, it is possible that new information could surface that
could change the factual findings of our investigation and our conclusions.
3
Harris reports directly to Burke and supervises the legal function for all of NBCUniversal.

1
Fact-Gathering

The investigation team interviewed 68 individuals who were identified by the investigation team
as possibly having information relevant to the investigation. The current leadership of the News Division
was interviewed, as well as members of the News HR and communications functions. Current and
former members of the Today Show staff were also interviewed, including producers at all seniority
levels, on-air talent (both anchors and certain correspondents and contributors), and employees in the
booking and production groups that support that program. Former members of NBC News leadership
and former News HR leaders were also contacted for information. Given the sensitive nature of the
topics discussed and the desire expressed by numerous witnesses for their identity and the information
they provided to remain confidential, all interview notes have been maintained in a secure location that
only the investigation team can access. No one in the News Division has had access to the interview
notes.

The investigation team also conducted targeted email account searches and reviews, including
the email accounts of Lauer and NBC News and Today Show leadership, reviewed text messages on
Lauer’s work-issued phones, and reviewed other relevant documents and information. NBCUniversal
Legal department records and HR records for both NBCUniversal and the News Division were reviewed,
together with records from the Comcast NBCUniversal complaint helplines and web portal, to determine
whether there were any prior complaints about Lauer. None were found. Overall, the availability of
evidence was impacted by the passage of time.

Factual Findings

We found no evidence indicating that any NBC News or Today Show leadership, News HR or
others in positions of authority in the News Division received any complaints about Lauer’s workplace
behavior prior to November 27, 2017. All four women who came forward confirmed that they did not
tell their direct manager or anyone else in a position of authority about their sexual encounters with
Lauer. 4 Current and former members of NBC News and Today Show leadership, as well as News HR,
stated that they had never received a complaint about inappropriate workplace behavior by Lauer, and
we did not find any contrary evidence. 5

We were also unable to establish that any of those interviewed, including NBC News and Today
Show leadership, News HR and others in positions of authority in the News Division, knew that Lauer
had engaged in sexual activity with other employees. Every such individual credibly responded that they

4
Although she did not tell her direct manager at the time about her sexual encounter with Lauer in 2001, one of
the four complainants did state that, in or around 1996, she contemporaneously told that manager about an
inappropriate interaction with Lauer where he placed his hand on her thigh and made a sexually suggestive
comment. According to the complainant, her manager inquired about her well-being, and they agreed that, for a
time, the complainant would not be assigned to projects that required travel with Lauer. The manager had a
similar recollection of the conversation and stated that she does not recall reporting the interaction to anyone.
5
Ann Curry has stated in the press that, in 2012, a woman came to her claiming that Lauer had sexually harassed
her and that Curry then told management at the time that they should be concerned about Lauer’s behavior
toward women. In a discussion with the investigation team, Curry confirmed that she did not disclose to anyone in
management that she had received a specific complaint. Curry declined to share with the investigation team the
identity of anyone in management with whom she spoke at the time or the identity of the woman who came to
her with a complaint about Lauer. The members of NBC News and Today Show leadership at the time with whom
we spoke denied having any such conversation with Curry.

2
had no such knowledge. Most witnesses interviewed stated that they had heard or read rumors about
Lauer’s personal life, including tabloid stories about the troubled state of his marriage and the possibility
of extramarital affairs, but those witnesses believed, with limited exceptions, that the rumored
extramarital affairs were with women outside of the Company. 6 Many interviewed expressed shock
upon reading press reports regarding Lauer’s alleged behavior, including employees who spent
significant amounts of time with Lauer as a result of their job duties or having known him for years. Two
of the four complainants who came forward said that they believe former NBC News or Today Show
leadership knew or must have known about Lauer’s alleged inappropriate sexual behavior in the
workplace. The former leaders with whom we spoke denied any such knowledge, however, and we
were unable to otherwise substantiate it.

Most witnesses had positive things to say about Lauer’s demeanor in the workplace. Lauer also
was described as a very private person who acted as a friend and professional mentor to both men and
women alike over decades at the Today Show.

A number of individuals interviewed said that Lauer could be flirtatious, would frequently make
jokes, some with sexual overtones, and would openly engage in sexually-oriented banter in the
workplace. Several women also credibly described to the investigation team being the subject of what
they believed was a sexual overture from Lauer in which he complimented them on their appearance in
sexually suggestive ways. According to these women, Lauer did not pursue them further when they
deflected or ignored the overture, and they did not experience any retaliation. All these women stated
that they did not report this behavior to anyone in a position of authority.

The investigation team also inquired about the nature of the “button” in Lauer’s office that was
alleged to have locked the door. According to the NBCUniversal facilities team, the button is a
commonly available feature in executive offices in multiple NBCUniversal facilities to provide an efficient
way to close the door without getting up from the desk. The button releases a magnet that holds the
door open. It does not lock the door from the inside.

Every witness we interviewed was asked whether they had concerns about inappropriate
workplace behavior by any other employees. A small number of those interviewed raised additional
concerns in their interview, including about rumored extramarital affairs among employees. Most of the
concerns already had been reported, investigated and addressed through disciplinary action where
warranted. The remainder that were not previously known involved allegations of conduct less
egregious than that pertaining to Lauer, and they are being investigated and addressed in a manner
consistent with Company policies and procedures. Based on the nature and number of complaints
reviewed, including the allegations related to Lauer’s conduct and the other workplace complaints that
have been raised through existing channels, the investigation team does not believe that there is a
widespread or systemic pattern of behavior that violates Company policy or a culture of harassment in
the News Division. 7

6
There has been a persistent rumor in the media and the News Division, which was repeated by witnesses during
the investigation, that Lauer had an extramarital affair with a News colleague. That colleague denied that any such
affair occurred. Some witnesses also speculated about other women at the Company who may have had a sexual
relationship with Lauer. We interviewed each of the women mentioned, and they each denied any sexual
relationship with or inappropriate behavior by Lauer.
7
We may re-evaluate these conclusions, as appropriate, if new information comes to our attention.

3
Culture Assessment

The investigation team found current and former NBC News and Today Show leadership, News
HR, and others interviewed who were in positions of authority in the News Division to be credible in
their denials of knowledge of Lauer’s inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace. The investigation
team also found credible the complainants’ allegations about Lauer’s inappropriate sexual behavior in
the workplace, as well as other witnesses’ statements about Lauer’s sexual overtures and his sexual
banter in the workplace. It was troubling, therefore, that no complaints appear to have been reported
about Lauer’s behavior through any channel over a long period of time. This failure to report was a key
focus of our interviews, as well as the broader cultural assessment.

Although the witnesses interviewed were generally aware of official Company channels to raise
workplace issues, a number of them said they had concerns about reporting inappropriate workplace
conduct to News HR, including: a lack of familiarity with News HR representatives; a fear of retaliation; a
belief that complaints cannot or will not be kept confidential; and a lack of a private environment in
which to raise issues, because News HR sits in glass-walled offices among other News Division
employees. Similar concerns regarding a lack of anonymity and fears of retaliation were raised about
reporting complaints directly to management.

In order to gain a deeper and broader understanding of any cultural issues in the News Division
that might be impeding reporting, the investigation team also initiated a comprehensive culture
assessment. A special team from NBCUniversal’s corporate Labor and Employment Law group with
experience in conducting these types of workplace assessments held over 30 voluntary one-hour
sessions with small groups of employees randomly chosen from across the News Division at different
levels of seniority. Over 400 employees were invited to attend a session and 262 employees
participated. Names were not recorded in order to promote candor. In each meeting, the team asked
the same three open-ended questions:

(1) Do you feel like you work in a respectful environment?

(2) What obstacles do you see, to you or others, to raising a concern about harassment
or other inappropriate behavior?
(3) What suggestions do you have to make this a more respectful place to work?

Extensive notes were taken of each session to capture the views expressed. At the end of each session,
the team provided participating employees with a questionnaire designed to obtain additional
information on employees’ level of comfort with reporting concerns and knowledge of how to do so.

In their substantive comments, participants expressed many positive sentiments about their
work environment, particularly in relation to the strong connections they feel with their colleagues and
the pride in the important work they accomplish on a daily basis. While many employees expressed
positive views of their managers, others pointed to a deficit in people management skills, which they felt
contributed to a lack of respect in the workplace, particularly given the intense pressure of news
deadlines.

The results of the questionnaire showed that a significant majority of participants would feel
comfortable going to News HR with a concern about inappropriate sexual behavior or other
disrespectful conduct and were aware of channels other than News HR to raise any concerns. However,
a substantial number of employees indicated uncertainty about whether, if raised, their concerns would

4
be promptly and thoroughly investigated or that appropriate action would be taken. Further, during the
small group sessions, employees perceived a lack of connection with News HR, an absence of
transparent communication from both News HR and their managers, a sense that News HR was too
closely aligned with management, and a fear of subtle retaliation, as barriers to reporting concerns.

To address these issues, employees suggested ways to build greater rapport with News HR and
to improve visibility into how workplace complaints are investigated. They also called for managers to
create stronger lines of communication with employees. 8

Conclusions and Recommendations

As noted above, the investigation team found credible the four complainants’ allegations that
Lauer engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace. The team also found credible the
statements of NBC News and Today Show leadership, News HR and others in positions of authority in
the News Division, as well as numerous other News and Today Show employees, that they did not know
about his behavior. The investigation team also found that Lauer frequently engaged in sexual banter or
joking in open working environments with other employees present or in a position to overhear his
comments. While the nature and frequency of that conduct did not rise to the level of creating a hostile
work environment, and no witnesses described it as such, it may have contributed to an atmosphere
where some employees who may have had concerns assumed nothing would be done to address them,
particularly given Lauer’s perceived importance to the News Division. That being said, as noted above,
the investigation team does not believe that there is a current widespread or systemic pattern of
behavior that violates Company policy or a current culture of harassment in the News Division, based on
our interviews, the cultural assessment and our review of the nature and number of workplace
complaints in the News Division.

It is clear from this investigation and the cultural assessment that, although most employees
understand that a number of channels exist both inside and outside of the News Division to report
concerns (including anonymously), more work needs to be done to ensure that all employees have this
information, feel comfortable reporting concerns and do not fear retaliation if they do. Similarly, more
education is necessary to ensure employees understand how complaints are investigated and
addressed, which will contribute to an environment where they feel secure in their ability to report
concerns. The investigation team strongly recommends that the News Division take immediate,
concrete steps to create a lasting culture that encourages a respectful work environment free of
inappropriate sexual or other conduct and prompt reporting of concerns without fear of retaliation, and
demonstrates that concerns raised will be addressed promptly, appropriately and effectively. We
recommend a number of steps below, in addition to measures that will be taken at the NBCUniversal
corporate level, to ensure that employees throughout the Company understand Company policy about
workplace behavior, the existence of reporting channels, the investigative process, and the Company’s
genuine commitment to prohibit and prevent retaliation.

Improve Training – Although a vast majority of the News Division completed the mandatory on-
line “Preventing Workplace Harassment” training when it was last offered, the investigation team
recommended interactive in-person training for the entire News Division shortly after the investigation
began in order to jump start a shared knowledge of behavioral expectations in the workplace and a

8
The investigation team has shared with News leadership detailed findings from the culture assessment so they
can determine what additional steps might be warranted.

5
deeper understanding of complaint reporting channels and investigation procedures. Based on the
team’s recommendation, the News Division engaged Seyfarth Shaw At Work (SSAW), a corporate
compliance services company that is a subsidiary business of the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, to conduct
in-person training for all its employees. The sessions, each attended by 20-25 employees, last two hours
and are conducted by experienced facilitators. The trainers start each session by supplying attendees
with an understanding of anti-harassment and retaliation law, as well as a review of the Company’s
relevant policies and the various channels through which workplace concerns may be reported. The
session then turns to interactive small-group discussions of scenarios customized to evoke situations
that News employees may confront in their day-to-day work. The facilitator encourages constructive
dialog on whether the scenarios describe problematic behavior, exploring the nuances of workplace
interactions and the different perception colleagues may bring to the same set of facts. Participants
leave with a set of tools and a common language that they can apply to actual workplace situations.
Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. To date, SSAW has facilitated more than 90 sessions in
New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, to more than 83% of the News Division employee
population. The entire News Division population, approximately 2,000 employees, will have been
trained by June 30, 2018.

Efforts are also underway at the NBCUniversal corporate level to enhance the mandatory on-line
training on preventing workplace harassment, which is offered biannually to all US-based NBCUniversal
employees. The new course will be available in the summer of 2018. We will also be exploring the use
of in-person training more broadly and on a more regular basis.

Improve Communication from Management – It is also important that News Division leadership
consistently set the tone from the top by emphasizing as often as possible the Company’s commitment
to a safe and respectful workplace, a willingness to take appropriate action no matter who is involved,
and no tolerance for retaliation. Since this investigation began, News Division leadership has been
communicating these points regularly with employees. In addition, it is important that managers
throughout the News Division are visible and vocal on these commitments as well so that employees
develop confidence that they are meaningful. As appropriate, more information should be shared with
complainants about how their concerns are addressed, including details on the investigation process
and what disciplinary action, if any, is taken.

NBCUniversal corporate soon will be issuing an updated Company-wide policy to provide greater
detail on expectations regarding workplace behavior, to explain the investigations process and to ensure
that all management employees understand their obligations to report concerns.

Improve Use of Reporting Channels – The investigation team also strongly recommends that the
News Division take action to improve employees’ comfort with reporting concerns. At the NBCUniversal
corporate level we are taking two steps to assist in this endeavor Company-wide. First, we will be
establishing at the NBCUniversal corporate level a Fair Employment Practices Group comprised of
experienced lawyers and other professionals to provide additional resources who will be available to
receive and investigate concerns from anywhere in the Company, independent of any business unit.
Second, we have and will continue to increase the visibility of the existing reporting channels, including
the helpline and web portal, which provide for anonymous reporting to a third party provider, through
an enhanced presence on the Company intranet and more frequent signage on Company electronic
billboards, among other measures.

6
 Within the News Division, steps should be taken to improve the visibility of News HR and their
familiarity with the employee base. Employees need to develop confidence that News HR offers a safe
space to report concerns and will act as employee advocates when necessary and appropriate. We also
recommend considering whether additional independent reporting channels should be established for
the News Division specifically until the level of comfort with existing internal channels improves. Of
course, the investigation team will remain available to hear concerns from News Division employees at
any time.

7
Facts on the NBC News Investigation of Harvey Weinstein

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. What Farrow Produced While at NBC News

i. Addendum A: Weinstein’s Attempts to Influence NBC’s Investigation

ii. Addendum B: Timeline

1. Executive Summary

No victims on the record

In August of 2017, after NBC News had assigned Ronan Farrow to investigate Weinstein and supported his
reporting efforts for more than eight months, Farrow believed strongly his reporting was ready for air and had
prepared a draft of a script. But unfortunately there was not a single victim of – or witness to – misconduct by
Weinstein who was willing to be identified. The only victim willing to be interviewed on camera and name
Weinstein was a woman who spoke anonymously in shadow and alleged he subjected her to verbal sexual
harassment. Therefore, following widely accepted journalistic standards, Farrow’s NBC News editors, including
the head of the investigative unit, did not believe his work was ready for broadcast.

Veteran Investigative Journalists Reviewed Farrow’s Reporting

In an effort to find a way forward with Farrow, NBC News took an extra step – convening a separate team of three
NBC News veteran journalists (two investigative reporters and one senior editor), each with decades of
experience, which this document will refer to as the “Editorial Review Team,” to examine Farrow’s draft script and
the underlying reporting. The Editorial Review Team was again unanimous that NBC News did not yet have a story
that was ready for broadcast.

Farrow Expressed Serious Concern About Competitive Pressure from The New York Times
The same week Farrow’s script was being reviewed, he expressed his deep concern that The New York Times
would break the story first, as he believed they had interviewed Ashley Judd on the record. He and his editors
discussed the additional burden he faced reporting the story for television and convincing women not only to lend
their names, but also to appear on camera. Soon thereafter, Farrow notified NBC News that a magazine was
interested in his story, and stated his desire to take his reporting there if NBC News would not agree to broadcast
it immediately.

NBC News Allowed Farrow to Take His Reporting to The New Yorker
Given Farrow’s insistence that his story run right away, and the fact that he was not a full time employee nor
exclusive to the network, NBC News agreed to his request, allowing him to take his reporting and source material
to the magazine. NBC News president Noah Oppenheim said in a text to Farrow on August 17, 2017: “Given that
we are still reviewing the reporting and given your desire to get this out soon/immediately, we don’t want to
stand in your way. You can go forth independently with the print outlet you’ve been talking to.”

The New York Times Story Had Two Victims on the Record
Throughout the eight months that NBC News had supported and guided his work, Farrow’s editors repeatedly told
him that the story needed at least one credible on-the-record accusation from someone willing to be identified —
a standard he still had not met. When The New York Times broke the Weinstein story on October 5, 2017, it had
two victims identifying themselves and speaking on the record, including Ashley Judd. They also had four
employees named on the record and four other victims who are named in the piece but did not speak on the
record, along with dozens of former and current employees who said they “knew of inappropriate conduct.”

Farrow’s New Yorker Article Bore Little Resemblance to His NBC News Reporting
Farrow’s award-winning New Yorker article about Weinstein – published nearly two months after he left NBC
News and five days after The New York Times piece – bore little resemblance to the draft script he produced at
NBC News. In fact, The New Yorker piece cited the following victims by name: Asia Argento, Mira Sorvino,
Rosanna Arquette, Lucia Evans, Emma de Caunes, Jessica Barth, and Sophie Dix. Not one of these seven women
was included in the reporting Farrow presented while at NBC News. An eighth woman named in The New Yorker
piece did engage with Farrow while he was at NBC News – but never gave NBC News permission to use her name.
2. What Farrow Produced While at NBC News

The only two individuals who were interviewed on camera and identified were Rose McGowan and Ken Auletta.
McGowan later sent NBC a cease-and-desist and Auletta a journalist, not a victim, was reacting on camera to
misleading information provided by Farrow.

1. Actress Rose McGowan. McGowan was interviewed on camera by Farrow, but refused to identify Weinstein.
She later entirely revoked her consent for NBC to use any part of her interview.

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, McGowan said she blocked the story at NBC News: “I started
a cease and desist at NBC. It was me that spiked it. It wasn’t the place for it.” She later told the Hollywood
Reporter, "NBC took a lot of heat for killing the story. But I actually served Ronan with a cease and desist —
two of them.”

From the NBC News interview transcript:

FARROW: You've already given people the dots to connect. Did Harvey Weinstein rape you?

MCGOWAN: I've never liked that name. I have a hard time saying it. So I'll leave it at that for now. But it's
a long-- it's a long life. It's a long life.

FARROW: And I understand all too well the process it can take to get there.

MCGOWAN: It's still a process. It's still – and it's very personal. And it's on nobody else's timeline.

Farrow’s editors encouraged him to try again to convince McGowan to name Weinstein on camera. Months
later, when Farrow attempted to arrange another on-camera interview, in which he said she would name
Weinstein, McGowan’s attorney sent a cease and desist letter – rescinding her cooperation and insisting NBC
not use any part of her original interview. NBC News honored this request, given that she was a victim of
sexual abuse. And as a result, the draft script did not include any reference to her. It would be eleven months
after her interview with Farrow – and three months after The New York Times broke the Weinstein story –
before McGowan would first name Weinstein on television.

2. The New Yorker media writer Ken Auletta was interviewed on camera explaining that while working on his
own story for The New Yorker in 2002, he had tried and failed to report on allegations against Weinstein, as
no accusers were willing to be identified by name. Auletta told Farrow in their interview that he “learned that
Harvey has made payments to people, and they sign a non-disclosure agreement.” But The New Yorker
decided not to include that in the 2002 article.

Auletta recently told PBS, “The New Yorker is not The National Enquirer. You don't publish a story that has a
profound impact on people and children when you don't have proof, and I didn't have proof… I also think
about journalism. As a journalist, I think the decision The New Yorker made was the right decision at the time,
even though – do I have questions whether it would have had an impact? Yes. But our job is not –means and
end matter here. And using foul means to get to a good end is not the way to go in my judgment.”

In their interview, Farrow led Auletta to believe that, for the NBC News story, he had multiple women willing
to be identified by name. But in fact, as this document reports, there was not a single victim of – or witness
to – misconduct by Weinstein who was willing to be identified.

AULETTA: And the reason I’m talking to you now – is because you have named people who are
willing to go on the record…”
 FARROW: “We do.”

At another point in the interview:

AULETTA: I mean, unlike me, you have real evidence. You have people who are gonna come
forward, and if you have the names and people willing to come forward by name –
a lawyer should step aside, and applaud, and just say, ‘You've done your job.’"

In a recent interview with Recode, Auletta again showed the extent to which Farrow had unfortunately
misrepresented the material he had while at NBC News:

AULETTA: He comes out, does a three-hour interview with me, he tells me in the course of that
interview as I remember, ‘I have eight women, three of them on camera, accusing Harvey and five
of them off camera. So I had eight women and I have the police tape of Harvey grabbing the
breast of the Italian model.’ I said, ‘oh my god, that’s unbelievable.”

In fact, as this document reports, there was not a single victim of – or witness to – misconduct by
Weinstein who was willing to be identified. The only victim willing to be interviewed on camera and name
Weinstein was a woman who spoke anonymously in shadow and alleged he subjected her to verbal sexual
harassment.

On-Camera Interviews – anonymous, in shadow

Farrow interviewed, anonymously and in shadow, one woman who accused Weinstein of verbal sexual
harassment. He also interviewed five former employees, anonymously and in shadow, who claimed they were
aware of sexual misconduct or harassment by Weinstein. However, the editorial review revealed that several of
these interviews relied only on second-hand knowledge and suspicion, rather than any direct observation. One
described incidents she witnessed as “more consensual,” and another interview subject would not name
Weinstein when describing common behavior by Hollywood studio heads.

If Farrow had interviewed a victim (or victims) willing to be identified, some material from these anonymous
interviews could have been useful for added context; but without that, on their own, they were not sufficient. The
determination by NBC News on this point is consistent, we believe, with the journalistic standards practiced by
major news organizations, including The New Yorker.

The details below are from the transcripts of interviews with these former executives and employees – none of
whom were willing to be identified:

Victim of verbal harassment – anonymous, in shadow

1. Former Temp (female) – temporary employee who alleged Weinstein subjected her to verbal sexual
harassment during her first week on the job. The draft script included several excerpts from this in-
shadow interview, as well as LinkedIn messages viewed by Farrow and his editors, from a top Weinstein
executive, who acknowledged Weinstein had a problem with sexual misconduct. Because the woman did
not want to be identified and also did not want the executive to know she had shared his identity, NBC
News could not reach out to the executive to verify the messages, which, journalistically, was a necessary
step. And most importantly, again, she was in shadow and anonymous, and therefore could not be the
sole basis for a story on Weinstein.

Former Employees – anonymous, in shadow

 1. Former Executive (male) – said he witnessed “sexual harassment… inappropriate touching” and “sexually
suggestive remarks.” Farrow included an excerpt from this interview in the draft script – but after
reviewing the full transcripts the Editorial Review Team discovered the script took his comments out of
context, misrepresenting him as if he were willing to identify Weinstein when in fact he had only agreed
to speak broadly of Hollywood executive behavior, and said on camera: “I’m not comfortable” specifically
naming Harvey Weinstein. Therefore NBC News could not use his account as a direct accusation against
Weinstein.

2. Former Executive B (female) – said she witnessed Weinstein “touching women, propositioning women
…just lecherous come-on kind of behavior.” Farrow’s draft script counted her as a witness to misconduct
by Weinstein. But the Editorial Review Team found in the full transcript that when asked if she saw
“examples of sexual harassment,” the former executive said “That’s a hard question to answer in the s—in
the s—in the sense that – that what I saw was more consensual. So I don’t know how – that – I don’t
know how to – how to define that.” As a result, her account could not be used at that point in time to
support a pattern of sexual harassment.

3. Former Assistant (female) – in an interview with contradictory statements, she said she was aware of
financial settlements with two female employees that she believed were the result of sexual misconduct.
However, she also said “I didn’t know the exact nature of the allegations,” and that her information was
“little bits gleaned from catching fragments of conversations on the phone.” This was not reportable
without additional details or sources.

4. Former Executive A (female) – said she was aware of late-night meetings Weinstein would have that she
believed were really setups to lure in women for sex. Her account was based on suspicion alone, and
therefore not reportable without additional details or sources.

5. Former Assistant (male) – said he would be asked to set up meetings in hotel rooms and would walk
women up to the room. He was suspicious of Weinstein but had no information about what happened
between the women and Weinstein. He said he “didn’t know what happened behind those closed doors.”

Other Elements

 Farrow told NBC News that off-camera, two women – each speaking on condition of anonymity – had
accused Harvey Weinstein of misconduct towards them, though, at the time, they made only general
allegations and had yet to provide any specific details according to the notes Farrow presented to NBC
News.

 He also had obtained a portion of a recording made during an undercover NYPD investigation into already
public allegations that Weinstein had groped Ambra Gutierrez. On the recording, Weinstein appeared to
admit he touched her inappropriately but the Manhattan District Attorney had not deemed the recording
to be sufficient evidence to prosecute Weinstein. Therefore, NBC News had two options with this
material: 1) Pursue a separate story centered on the DA’s decision not to prosecute Weinstein in that
case, or 2) If Farrow could meet the editorial standard and get one Weinstein accuser fully on the record,
the tape could be used to support the larger story we were pursuing to establish a pattern of sexual
misconduct – which was Farrow’s stated goal and the thesis of the only script he ever drafted or asked
NBC News to broadcast. Notably, The New Yorker also had access to the same recording for nearly eight
weeks, and did not report on it (or release it) until it was ultimately included in their larger piece with
eight accusers on the record.
 Farrow also said he had seen a settlement agreement between Weinstein and Gutierrez but in order to
protect his source he was unable to name Gutierrez as the party to the agreement. As later reported in
The New Yorker, the agreement included an affidavit stating that the acts he referred to in the recording
never happened.
Addendum A: Weinstein’s Attempts to Influence NBC’s Investigation

Harvey Weinstein and his attorneys repeatedly tried to contact multiple people at NBC News during the
investigation and well after. They were aggressive and persistent. This is a dynamic NBC News is quite familiar
with as a home to investigative journalism and had no impact on the editorial process.

Weinstein’s concern focused primarily, but not exclusively, on Rose McGowan. What was unusual was that he
and his lawyers repeatedly mischaracterized their interactions with NBC News – both in private emails to each
other (one of which mistakenly copied an NBC News lawyer) and in phone calls and emails back to NBC News –
presumably to try to gain advantage. Weinstein and his representatives were repeatedly told only that, if and
when NBC News was prepared to run a story, they would be given an appropriate amount of time to respond.
Because Farrow never had a victim or witness willing to be identified, that became moot. Here are descriptions
of Weinstein’s team’s outreach to NBC News:

Andy Lack: Weinstein made numerous calls and emails to Lack between April and September of 2017. When
Weinstein first called in April, Lack was unaware of the investigation as it had not yet been raised to his level.
As a result he answered the call. Lack said he didn’t know what Weinstein was talking about and suggested
Weinstein ask MSNBC (where Farrow had worked previously). After that Weinstein made at least nine more
calls and sent at least four emails to Lack. None were answered or returned. In September, Weinstein
attempted to isolate Lack at an event both attended. Lack rebuffed him, said only “hello,” and walked away.
Later in September, weeks after Farrow left NBC News to work on the story for The New Yorker, attorney David
Boies reached Lack, who told him that Farrow was no longer working on the story for NBC News and was
pursuing it elsewhere.

Noah Oppenheim: Oppenheim had never met or spoken to Harvey Weinstein prior to April 2017. The
following is an exhaustive list of their only interactions: 1) Oppenheim was assigned a seat at the same table
as Weinstein during the TIME 100 Gala in April 2017, an event Farrow also attended. At the beginning of the
meal, Weinstein introduced himself. Oppenheim replied with his name. Weinstein remarked, “I didn’t like
your movie” and turned his attention elsewhere. They did not speak for the remainder of the evening. 2)
Oppenheim answered his phone one afternoon in early August – not knowing it was Weinstein calling.
Weinstein launched into a rambling assault on Rose McGowan’s credibility. Oppenheim listened politely and
told Weinstein that if and when a report was ready for air, he would have the opportunity to comment. 3)
Shortly thereafter, Weinstein attorney Lanny Davis arrived, uninvited and without an appointment, in the
lobby of Rockefeller Center. Oppenheim went to the lobby and asked him to leave. Davis launched into
another attack on McGowan. In an interaction that lasted less than one minute, Oppenheim told Davis there
was no McGowan story ready for air at that time, to stop targeting her, and repeated that Weinstein would
have an opportunity to respond if/when NBC News was ready to broadcast allegations. Roughly two weeks
after this brief interaction, Weinstein’s attorney Charles Harder sent an email to NBC News’ lawyer grossly
mischaracterizing the assurances in this conversation. For instance, in their version “no investigation ready for
air” became “the investigation has ended.” Agreeing to speak to Davis, “off the record” in that one lobby
conversation, became agreeing that every conversation with Weinstein’s attorneys would be treated as such.
The email was sent at 8:46 pm on August 15, 2017. At 5:30 am the next morning, NBC News’ lawyer sent an
email back explicitly rejecting that characterization. 4) Oppenheim received an unsolicited email from
Weinstein in September, offering congratulations on the launch of Megyn Kelly’s show. Oppenheim consulted
with NBC News’ attorney and replied with a one-line “thank you.”

Others: Weinstein also called MSNBC president Phil Griffin numerous times, sometimes with David Boies on
the phone and sometimes alone. On the first call, Griffin told Weinstein that he was unaware of the
investigation. After that, Griffin told Weinstein repeatedly that Farrow was investigating him, that the
executive editor of the investigative unit, Rich Greenberg, was overseeing the effort, and if NBC News decided
to broadcast a story Weinstein would be contacted in advance and given an opportunity to respond to
allegations. Greenberg fielded three calls in which Weinstein wanted to know what information NBC News
had, and demanded a meeting with Farrow, which was not granted. Greenberg told Weinstein repeatedly
during each conversation that when NBC News had a report ready for broadcast, he would be given sufficient
time to respond. During their third conversation, Weinstein grew agitated. Greenberg told him he was being
“belligerent” and should be more respectful. Weinstein apologized. Subsequent to that conversation, attorney
Lisa Bloom contacted Greenberg saying she was reaching out on behalf of Weinstein to ask about the status of
the story. Greenberg reiterated that NBC News would reach out to Weinstein when there was a report ready
for air with sufficient time for him to respond.
Addendum B: Timeline
August 2016: NBC News’ investigative unit begins work on a proposed three-part series on Hollywood, “From
the Casting Couch to the Political Arena” to be reported by Ronan Farrow for TODAY. Harvey Weinstein’s name
is not part of this initial assignment.

Fall, 2016: Farrow appears on TODAY for an “Uncovered” series on college life, including segments on ADHD,
binge drinking, and sexual abuse on campus. He also reports on millennial voters, Google in the fight against
ISIS, and environmental contamination at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State.

January 17, 2017: In a meeting with Farrow and a senior TODAY producer, Noah Oppenheim points out online
speculation that a recent tweet by Rose McGowan may be a reference to misconduct by Weinstein and assigns
Farrow to pursue it, as part of a series on Hollywood to run the week before the Oscars.

February 7, 2017: Farrow appears on TODAY to report a story on truck safety.

February 14, 2017: Farrow interviews Rose McGowan, who does not name Weinstein as her alleged attacker.

Late February, 2017: Early reporting on Weinstein is insufficient to meet the planned air date around the time
of the Oscars, but Farrow’s editors encourage him to continue to pursue the story.

March, 2017: Farrow notifies editors that he will need to “hunker down” and “write around the clock” for the
next two weeks in order to meet publisher deadlines for his forthcoming book on diplomacy.

March 21, 2017: Farrow tells his editors he has listened to a recording of an encounter between Weinstein and
Ambra Gutierrez as part of an NYPD investigation into her allegation that Weinstein groped her. He indicates
to editors he will continue pursuing the Weinstein story.

April – July 2017: While Farrow takes more time away to work on his book, he periodically checks in with his
NBC News editors.

July 11, 2017: After many weeks with limited contact, Farrow checks in with his editors, saying he now has
“lots of developments” and wants to meet.

July 23, 2017: Farrow submits a draft script that relies heavily on Rose McGowan, who still has not named
Weinstein on camera. He also sends his editor a rough draft of a digital story to accompany the broadcast
script. Based on the same reporting – and centered around McGowan’s interview that was days later deemed
unusable when her attorneys revoked all permission – the digital story had the same fundamental problem as
the broadcast script: there was not a single victim of – or witness to – misconduct by Weinstein who was
willing to be identified. There was no discussion of running the digital piece only, and there was never a
suggestion of running a digital piece without any video.

July 25, 2017: Farrow submits a revised script and a list of elements he has gathered, but much of it does not
stand up to editorial scrutiny. As a result, he is asked to focus the majority of his effort on further revising the
script rather than strictly continuing to gather new source material.

July 26, 2017: Farrow says in an email to his editors that he is having coffee with McGowan “tomorrow AM,”
with the goal of finally getting her to name Weinstein as her assailant on camera.

July 27, 2017: Farrow informs his editors McGowan “is going on camera again for us Tuesday [August 1] 2pm in
NY.”
July 30, 2017: Farrow informs his editors McGowan has cancelled the interview.

August 2, 2017: Rose McGowan’s attorney sends a cease and desist letter to NBC revoking consent for NBC to
use any portion of her interview (in which she did not name Weinstein as her assailant).

August 2, 2017: In an effort to prepare for the possible legal challenges to a story with such serious allegations,
the general counsels of NBCUniversal and NBC News meet with Farrow and Greenberg (head of the
investigative unit), offering general guidance.

August 4, 2017: Farrow submits a revised draft script. McGowan is no longer included. The Gutierrez case is
added in, but without on-the-record participation by her. Absent a single on the record victim or witness, NBC
News editors determine the script is still not yet ready for broadcast.

August 9, 2017: In an effort to find a way forward with Farrow, NBC News takes an extra step – convening a
separate team of three NBC News veteran journalists (two investigative reporters and one senior editor), each
with decades of experience, to examine Farrow’s draft script and the underlying reporting. They are ultimately
unanimous in their view that NBC News does not have a story that is ready for broadcast. Their review also
reveals that some of Farrow’s claims and sourcing throughout the draft script are not consistent with his
reporting.

August 17, 2017: Farrow tells NBC News he has a print magazine interested in running his story. NBC News
agrees to let Farrow take his reporting to that outlet, tells him “we don’t want to stand in your way,” and
invites him to return to NBC News broadcasts to discuss his work -- if and when he publishes. David Remnick
later made clear that when Farrow first came to The New Yorker with the project, it was not ready, saying
“there was more work to be done” and “with extremely hard work with a lot of my colleagues, he deepened
the piece and made it publishable.”

August 18, 2017: Farrow tells the head of the Investigative Unit about the development with the magazine,
says he is pleased with the outcome and considers the arrangement with NBC News to be amicable.

September 11, 2017: While pursuing the Weinstein story at The New Yorker, Farrow asks NBC for a new
freelance contract, which he continued to pursue via his reps at CAA, and subsequently at WME, through
November.

October 5, 2017: Jodi Kantor and Meghan Twohey of The New York Times break the Weinstein story. Their
article has two victims identifying themselves and speaking on the record, including Ashley Judd. They also
have four employees named on the record and four other victims who are named in the piece but do not
speak on the record, along with dozens of former and current employees who say they “knew of inappropriate
conduct.”

October 9, 2017: Lauren Sivan becomes the first Weinstein accuser to go on camera. She appears live on NBC
News, on Megyn Kelly TODAY, and describes her encounter with Weinstein.

October 10, 2017: Farrow’s article is published in The New Yorker. It cites the following victims by name: Asia
Argento, Mira Sorvino, Rosanna Arquette, Lucia Evans, Emma de Caunes, Jessica Barth and Sophie Dix. Not one
of these seven women was included in the reporting Farrow presented while at NBC News. An eighth woman
named in The New Yorker piece engaged with Farrow while he was at NBC News but never gave NBC News
permission to use her name.
###