Discussion for article #231189
this situation is spinning further and further out of control. the conversation used to be about violence against womenā¦now, itāsā¦i dunnoā¦something to do with writing words maybe? too badā¦violence against women should be what weāre talking about. rolling stone really screwed this up royally. I hope that ājournalistā is looking for work right now.
Sadly, this sort of excuse for ājournalismā is nothing new. Back in my days as a Snivel Servant working for Uncle Sugar, I quickly learned that every time, and I do mean every time, there was an article in the Washington Post about the agency I worked for, the reporter had managed to screw up at least one pertinent fact. Iām not talking about misspelling someoneās name, or transposing the digits in some figures. Iām talking about some key element of the story, something that fundamentally altered its import. This has been going on for decades.
I didnāt notice a dispute over whether rape occurred. Rather, at what moment in time did Jackieās friendsā own concerns for their own reputations come to outweigh their concern for Jackie? Rolling Stone says it happened immediately behind the frat house on a picnic table. The friends say no, weāre not like that, but their named interviews look a more like damage control than anything else.
2 Likes
āSpinning further and further out of control?ā Nice meaningless cliche there. Out of whose control? Just who should be ācontrollingā the story?
Donāt you think a concern for the truth of what was in the story is evident here? The three friends are talking about what they know to be true and was misreported in the story. Did Jackie tell the reporter a pack of lies about her friendsā conduct, or did the reporter tailor Jackieās story to fit a preconceived narrative about ingrained lack of concern about sexual assault on campuses? If Jackieās lying about what her friends said and did, it certainly calls her credibility into question. My inclination is to think that the reporter slanted and misreported whatever Jackie told her about this incident.
4 Likes
Yeah itās hard to know what is going on here. One thing it does seem to confirm is that something did happen that night. Her friends corroborate that but they dispute dissuading her from going to the police. Was it just bad reporting or did Jackie tell them something different. Iām more inclined to believe itās bad reporting.
Because no editor wants to pay big bucks for en explosive story about a bunch of fellow classmates who do their best to help an apparent female victim in crisis when the metastory is about the patriarchy.
This is the first account wherein āJackieā is said to have not wanted the female member of the group, Kathryn āCindyā Hendley as witness to her revealing her āassaultā. I cannot reckon whether that is a red flag of sorts for deceitful behavior or just a quirk of behavior from a very odd young woman.
If Hendley had anything like the attitudes reported in the original story, one can think of a pretty good reason for not wanting her included in the whole conversation. Thereās also a problem with wanting to call 911 at a point where the immediate danger is long past. What I donāt really see addressed in the interviews is the question of why no one considered medical attention.
But all of this is two years after the fact and thoroughly burnished, so we really canāt get that far.
out of my control, obviouslyā¦do you have to work to be that obtuse, or does it just come naturally?
I think the friends concern for the truth about their own behavior is more evident than any other kind. I also think the reporter sloppily failed to interview the friends, and that her obligation should be to hear them out and reconsider how their disputed version of events affects the broader narrative. My guess is that the disputed trees will make the forest ring truer, if that makes sense. The victimās credibility is always going to be scrutinized and is often going to be judged harshly.
You might be referring to the all the blood that presumably covered āJackieāsā dress that happened when she was pushed through the glass tabletop. In reality there was no blood.
On the contrary, 911 is still the number to call when reporting a crime like rape after the fact. The operators can certainly dispatch police to assist even past an immediate danger.
As to your comment about Hendley, you are basing the reluctance of āJackieā on the bogus account in the RS article. So I ask you, do you really think a woman who has been just gangraped wants to confide in her male friends while excluding a woman from her presence. That detail is enough to make me doubt the rest of the account and think further that the journalist of this piece was desperate to get the right victim for the story that she had decided that she wanted to write. Even a modicum of skepticism could have averted this trainwreck; instead, there is another example of the presumption of a womanās victimhood.