Top Exec At Amazon Studios Put On Leave After Harassment Allegations
Roy Price, head of Amazon Studios, participates in the “Hand of God” panel at the Amazon Summer TCA Tour at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., in Aug. 2015.
Richard Shotwell/Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Shotwell/Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP
Updated at 2:30 a.m. ET
Roy Price, the head of Amazon Studios, has been put on leave following allegations published in The Hollywood Reporter that he sexually harassed a female producer for the series The Man in the High Castle.
Producer Isa Hackett attends “The Man in the High Castle” photo call at the Amazon Summer TCA Tour at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif. Hackett says she was sexually harassed in 2015 by Amazon Studios executive Roy Price.
Richard Shotwell/Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Shotwell/Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP
The incident allegedly occurred in July 2015 at a Comic-Con in San Diego, according to the trade paper, which says that in a taxi, Price “repeatedly and insistently propositioned” producer Isa Hackett using explicit language.
In a brief statement, Amazon confirmed late Thursday that: “Roy Price is on leave of absence effective immediately.”
Hackett, who is the daughter of Philip K. Dick, the author of the book The Man in the High Castle says that Michael Paull, then-Amazon executive and now CEO of the digital media company BAMTech, was also in the taxi with Hackett and Price at the time of the incident.
According to Hollywood Reporter:
“Hackett says she reported the incident to Amazon executives immediately. An outside investigator, Christine Farrell of Public Interest Investigations Inc., was brought in and spoke to Hackett and executives at Amazon. Hackett says she was never told the outcome of that inquiry, but notes that she hasn’t seen Price at any events involving her shows.”
The allegation against Price follows a series of similar ones directed at film executive Harvey Weinstein. On Sunday, The Weinstein Co., which Weinstein co-founded, fired him after dozens of women, including actors Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow, went public with allegations of sexual misconduct and assault.
In Thursday’s statement from Amazon, the company said it was also reviewing its options for projects with The Weinstein Co. Those projects include The Romanoffs and an untitled drama from filmmaker David O. Russell starring Robert De Niro and Julianne Moore, according to The Associated Press.
That review also follows a series of tweets by actor, director and producer Rose McGowan on Thursday in which she confirmed that Weinstein is the Hollywood executive she claims raped her. In the tweets, directed at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, McGowan says “I told the head of your studio that HW raped me. Over & over I said it.” McGowan also says that a script she had written that was in development was abruptly pulled by Amazon after she raised the allegations.
The AP, quoting Hackett’s attorney, Christopher Tricarico, says Hollywood Reporter’s account is accurate. Tricarico says his client does not intend to pursue legal action against Amazon or Price.
Hackett, who initially was publicly reticent about the incident, told Hollywood Reporter that “It was shocking and surreal,” and that she believed it was important to speak up now.
“I didn’t want the details to come out previously because I didn’t want to distract or deflate the energies of all the people who are so invested in these shows, and all of that positivity,” she told the trade paper. “You don’t want to bring this into it. It feels demoralizing.”
How Trump's Executive Order Could Affect The Health Insurance System
NPR’S Robert Siegel talks with Sabrina Corlette, a professor at Georgetown University and expert on the health insurance market, about President Trump’s executive order on health associations and the impact they will have on the health care system.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
Now we turn to Sabrina Corlette. She used to be a staffer with the Senate Health Committee. She now studies the health insurance industry at Georgetown University. Welcome to the program.
SABRINA CORLETTE: Thank you.
SIEGEL: One of the things this executive order does is allow small businesses to band together with an association so they can get more coverage and cheaper coverage for their employees. What’s the problem with that?
CORLETTE: Well, there’s a couple of problems. One is that the Affordable Care Act is very clear that if you have a older or sicker group of employees, insurance companies can’t discriminate against you. This would turn that on its head. And if you came into the association with, say, somebody who had cancer or women of childbearing age, you could find that your premiums would be much, much higher than employers with healthier workers.
SIEGEL: But the difference would be that the associations would not be regulated, would not be covered by the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
CORLETTE: That’s right. That’s right. The associations would be exempt from a lot of the insurance protections that are in the ACA.
SIEGEL: But as I understand it, health insurance policies that we get from our employers are also not directly covered in that sense. If everybody got a job at a company that gave them insurance, would that pose the same problem?
CORLETTE: Well, I think it’s important to distinguish between the kind of insurance you get at a large employer and what you might get through these association health plans. Remember that a large employer like NPR has both healthy and not-so-healthy employees, but the reason you have insurance is not ’cause you need insurance. It’s because you work at NPR.
Association health plans are different. The reason people are coming to them is because they need insurance. And so insurance companies are trying to protect themselves from people who need to use a lot of health care services.
SIEGEL: So the members of the association are individuals, or they’re groups of employees at companies who – what’s the association an association of?
CORLETTE: Well, here it sounds like what this executive order is directed at is associations that are made up of small employers. So you could imagine the Bar Association might have a group of law firms signing up for health insurance or the gym owners association. So there are multiple reasons why you could create an association, but essentially people would be using it to purchase insurance for their employees.
SIEGEL: But I mean, I’m sure you can appreciate what sounds like the appeal of this, which is that 20 law firms joining together to buy health insurance sounds like it’d get a better deal than each law firm individually trying to do that.
CORLETTE: Well, you’ll get a better deal if you have young, healthy workers. If you have older, sicker workers, you will be charged a higher premium to reflect the higher use of health care services.
SIEGEL: As we’ve mentioned, 150 million of us I think get health insurance through our employer. Are we affected by this executive order?
CORLETTE: Well, it’s hard to say. If these association health plans do become more widespread and are – become exempt from state laws, we could be, particularly if we work for a small employer. If, for example, we have a problem with our plan and we’re in one of these associations, we may not be able to get help from our state insurance department – for example, if claims aren’t being paid.
SIEGEL: What do you say to the argument that proposal like the one that’s made today with these new rules shouldn’t be compared with the ideal but rather with the real situation that many people face, which is the only policies they can afford and, under the Affordable Care Act, have such high deductibles that they feel they have no access to the real coverage? There’s a serious problem out there.
CORLETTE: There’s no question that the Affordable Care Act could use some policy fixes, but these are not the policy fixes that we need. Rather than fixing the problems that do exist with the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and shoring up the coverage, this effectively undermines those marketplaces and makes the coverage that is available to people with pre-existing conditions much less stable and secure.
SIEGEL: Sabrina Corlette studies health insurance reform issues at Georgetown University. Thanks for talking with us.
CORLETTE: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF RJD2’S “MONSTERS UNDER MY BED”)
Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
How The U.S. Men Missed The World Cup, And What It Means For Soccer In America
A raucous crowd cheers for Team USA during a Tuesday, July 1, 2014 World Cup soccer match between the U.S. and Belgium at a public viewing party in Detroit, Tuesday, July 1, 2014. For many fans during next year’s U.S.-free World Cup, it’ll be just another day in the office.
Paul Sancya/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Paul Sancya/AP
On Tuesday, the U.S. Men’s Soccer Team failed to qualify for the World Cup for the first time since 1986. The stunning result brings to an end two disappointing years of qualifying matches for the United States, and reactions to those results could significantly change soccer in America.
World Cup qualifying is split into regions; the U.S. plays in CONCACAF, the soccer body covering North and Central America. Its qualifying tournament often is described as “forgiving,” as it stacks the odds heavily in favor of stronger teams, including the U.S. and Mexico. Even after one of the worst qualifying cycles in recent history, ESPN measured the U.S. odds to qualify for next year’s World Cup in Russia at 97 percent before Tuesday night.
But a 2-1 loss to Trinidad and Tobago, combined with upset wins by Honduras and Panama, meant the only scenario that could outright eliminate the U.S. became a reality. Now, the country’s soccer program must figure out how to rebuild and qualify for the World Cup in Qatar — five long years away.
The impact of failing to qualify
Financially, U.S. Soccer will miss out on at least $10 million in prize money awarded to each country at the World Cup. They’re also likely to lose tens of millions of dollars in potential sponsorship deals, merchandise sales and television licenses. U.S. Soccer brought in about $100 million total in 2014, the year of the most recent World Cup. That would put a significant dent in the organization’s revenue, and potentially set back the country’s next generation of soccer talent.
The United States team wandered aimlessly for 40 years between the World Cups of 1950 and 1990, and have been trying to catch up to the top European and South American countries ever since. A key part of that effort is the fledgling U.S. development academy system. About a quarter of U.S. National Team expenses are spent on the country’s youth national teams and player development — around $22 million in 2016. A budget crunch could limit the growth of that program.
The failure to qualify for the World Cup also could influence perception of U.S. Soccer around the globe. The United States team may find it more difficult to schedule exhibition matches, and larger international clubs — where U.S. players alreadyare few and far between — may be less willing to sign Americans.
Meanwhile, dual-citizen players, who must choose one country to represent, may be less likely to follow the lead of phenom Christian Pulisic — who also has Croatian citizenship — and pick the United States. And younger American athletes may not be inspired to take up soccer in the first place if their country isn’t represented at the world’s biggest tournament.
U.S. Soccer will also miss its best opportunity to showcase the sport for potential new fans, which could hinder its growth moving forward. In 2014, about 20 million more Americans watched World Cup games featuring the United States than similar games without them. Next year, none of the games will feature the U.S. — and unlike the games from the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the 2018 matches won’t be broadcast in prime time.
In addition, the 2014 World Cup Final between Germany and Argentina reached a record number of Americans. Without the boost of the U.S. in the tournament, the 2018 Final may be unable to replicate those ratings.
That’s all bad news for Fox Sports, which outbid ESPN for the broadcasting rights and will pay $425 million to air next two World Cups. The network already had scheduled more than 350 hours of World Cup-related programming.
However, missing the men’s World Cup isn’t the end of soccer in the United States. The women’s national team is still ranked first in the world, and their World Cup win in 2015 set ratings records in the U.S.
The next Women’s World Cup will be played in France in 2019, and qualification matches for that tournament begin next year.
Tim Webber is an intern on NPR’s National Desk.
