Discussion for article #230881
When I read that the reporter and the magazine has acquiesced to the victimâs request that the reporter not speak to the person who sheâs accusing of her sexual attack, I thought that this was journalism malpractice 101. What it shows is that in the overall concern for the victim actually weakened the legitimacy of the story. A publication just cannot allow a subject of a story to make unreasonable demands on the editorial process.
This revelation just may have undermined the exposure of rape in other circumstances via journalism.
5 Likes
This is a lame, lame story. You canât make allegations like this and claim that itâs âunrealisticâ to have the facts behind you. If she didnât know what day it happened, what fraternity was involved, youâre damn right that she shouldnât have reported an unverifiable account, regrettable as that may seem.
2 Likes
This is a mess - for multiple reasons. Chiefly because it pursued an issue of high importance with a an example case that was, yes- very dramatic, but - problematic. What then happens is that the dialog becomes fragmented - the urgently needed examination of the subject of sexual assault - and societyâs general lack of diligence in pursuing the perpetrators becomes intermittently hijacked by heated inquiry about the veracity of this victim in this example case.
Frankly, this is not about Jackie - it is about the overall kinds of things that Jackie described - the kinds of things that go on all across this country - to many many many women - it is the big picture that must take center stage. This must not become micro focused on the dates, times, names of the Jackie story - this is far bigger - and as insensitive as it may sound - this is not an opportunity for Jackieâs individual story to go to trial.
Your comment is a mess and her unsupported allegations are certainly on trial. The interests of real victims are undermined by this, whether it was foggy memory, terrible journalism, or outright charade. Some victims you perhaps donât mean may be the occupants of that fraternity who have already punched giant holes in her story. This entire sketchy affair is not good for them, for fraternities in general, and certainly not for women needing more security in their lives.
4 Likes
Good luck to you.
1 Like
Thanks, but I deleted the post . I donât think people want to hear it
I think we are actually on the same page - Yes - the veracity HER story individual story is NOW on trial - that is exactly my point - and that is exactly what should NOT have happened ⌠and the structural integrity of the story now is and, unfortunately, will continue to be, the discussion that siphons the attention and the energy from the more important issue - which you mentioned - âThe interests of real victimsâ - and yes, that is what should be the focus of the debate.
As far as the comment âthis is not an opportunity for Jackieâs individual story to go to trialâ - to be more specific - this (the legitimate overall discussion of sexual assault) should not & can not be an opportunity for Jackie ( or some one acting on her behalf) to seek out some form of redress for her specific individual experience of 2012.
The situation is a mess - because it has helped no one - and hurt many.
Understand totally. Best wishes.
1 Like
Exactly. Is that kind of reasoning supposed to be helpful to victims of sexual assault in general? If itâs âunrealisticâ for them to report accurately what happened, why should they be believed? Bogus âexpertsâ here I say.
1 Like
The veracity of her story is unfortunately on trial because it is somewhat unbelievable. Why should it not happen? The truth matters. What I just wrote should not be interpreted to mean that I do not believe that rapes occur on campuses and that they are devastating and too common. But again I say, the truth matters.
My wife was raped in a fraternity years ago. My former lover was raped in a dorm by a football player. I imagine that there are many other women Iâve known that have been raped but didnât feel inclined to talk about it. My daughter is going to college in a few years. I really loathe those who would use some sloppy reporting and bad editorial decisions as an excuse to diminish or dismiss what really appears to be a long running epidemic of coercion and violence against women.
Edit: Man, in the minutes since I wrote this, Iâve remembered three other women I knew who reported being raped in college.
5 Likes
Itâs really strange, isnât it? If someone makes up a story about being robbed we donât start assuming that robbery is a fiction. And yet because of one (possible) instance of a false accusation of rape, we have to continually assert that, yes, rape does actually occur.
4 Likes
Oh, and who disputes that?
1 Like
It would not have happened if the idiot journalists had not set out to be more PC than Thou and ran an unverified account and jeremiad, possible hoax, urinating upon their own rules. The editors are really right when they say if you want to blame somebody, blame them. And how! In fact, it didnât âhappenâ, it was inflicted on society by do-gooder buffoons.
1 Like
I agree norman. I blew holes in Jackies story. But here is a simple idea. Tell the freaking truth. Investigate the story and report the truth. This still stops at Rolling Stoneâs editorial board. All the editors had to do was tell the reporter that unless the restraints are lifted set up by Jackie. There is no story to print. They could not find a better true story that would alarm about campus sexual assault? I believe Rolling Stone was looking for the big sensational story to also sell copies.
I never diminished the alarm about college campus rape. It does P_ss me off when a story gets out that could screw peopleâs lives up and cause mass hysteria⌠âThey were throwing bricks through that Frat House windows.â When the story is not investigated properly and may be untrue. Just as rape/sexual assault is awful. Accusing someone of the crime unjustly is just as bad. It ruins lives. Both crimes ruin lives. So a magazine like Rolling Stone ought to make damn sure they have their story vetted before publishing it. I donât blame Jackie, I donât blame the reporter. I blame the Rolling Stone editors.
Experts? We need experts to tell us this?
My comment was aimed at folks (e.g., Johah Goldberg) who are using this incident to push back against the idea that there is some sort of rape culture at American universities. It was not directed at any posters here. I agree that the editors at RS are at fault for not properly vetting the story.