Also, there seems to be a big difference between the two accounts of this event. In the accusers account it is clearly awful and Owen has a lot power over her and women like her. In Owen’s account they previously know one another, it’s unclear why she ends up staying with him and he has little power over her job.
I would not conflate “the accuser’s account” with “the account of the Times article”.
My best guess is that the author heavily cherry-picked statements by the accuser and set up context to make things seem maximally scandalous. Indeed, the Times article really doesn’t score highly on accuracy, and this post seems to corroborate that.
I think the perspectives might still differ a lot, but we don’t know, we only have info through a highly filtered lens of the times article, which I would not treat as a reliable source about anyone’s sentiments.
I’m not sure the accounts actually are that different. The only statement in the article that owen said was false was that he wasn’t an official recruiter at the time. However, if we look at the statements:
My role didn’t develop to connecting people with different positions until later, and this wasn’t part of my self-conception at the time
(However it makes sense to me that this was her perception)
This implies that while he wasn’t officially a recruiter, it was reasonable for her to think that he was. It’s plausible to me that he was playing the role unofficially at the time, but thought he was just helping out friends with recommendations. He did confirm that he “suggested her as a candidate” and had “signficant power”.
I think some of the context was flattened in the editing of the times article, but I don’t see any contradictions between the accounts.
Also, there seems to be a big difference between the two accounts of this event. In the accusers account it is clearly awful and Owen has a lot power over her and women like her. In Owen’s account they previously know one another, it’s unclear why she ends up staying with him and he has little power over her job.
Seems underrated how different those are.
I would not conflate “the accuser’s account” with “the account of the Times article”.
My best guess is that the author heavily cherry-picked statements by the accuser and set up context to make things seem maximally scandalous. Indeed, the Times article really doesn’t score highly on accuracy, and this post seems to corroborate that.
I think the perspectives might still differ a lot, but we don’t know, we only have info through a highly filtered lens of the times article, which I would not treat as a reliable source about anyone’s sentiments.
I’m not sure the accounts actually are that different. The only statement in the article that owen said was false was that he wasn’t an official recruiter at the time. However, if we look at the statements:
This implies that while he wasn’t officially a recruiter, it was reasonable for her to think that he was. It’s plausible to me that he was playing the role unofficially at the time, but thought he was just helping out friends with recommendations. He did confirm that he “suggested her as a candidate” and had “signficant power”.
I think some of the context was flattened in the editing of the times article, but I don’t see any contradictions between the accounts.
Doesn’t seem like a big difference to me.