Samantha Barbas, a law professor at the University of Buffalo, said it appears that media outlets are being threatened with and hit with more lawsuits than ever, and juries seem more willing to side with people who claim they’ve been injured by the press.
“The climate seems to be one where people, especially public figures, don’t fear taking on the press as they might have in the past,” said Barbas, who studies the intersection of the First Amendment, culture, media and privacy.
If this is true, Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, et.al. should be shaking in their shoes. Lying and dissembling is their very business model.
That story really was ridiculous. The reason they led with Jackie’s story was because it was the most outrageous, but the whole thing was TOO outrageous and the reporter and editors should have been more suspicious. I mean, the idea that frats would have a required ritual of taking a girl out on a date so they could force pledges to violently gang rape her is entirely bizarre. Plus, if it was as violent and bloody as she said, it wouldn’t have been a “he said she said” situation, she’d just go to the cops and they’d find her blood all over the room in the frathouse.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the fact that Jackie didn’t want them to investigate anything about her claims and then tried to talk them out of running her story should have put up all the red flags. But I’m sure they had tunnel-vision and went with the most sensational story because it sounded so juicy. Sexual assault is a bad enough issue as it is, while Jackie’s story only minimized the real problem we have in this country with her over the top claims, while serving as fodder for the pro-rape movement to cast doubt on all the real victims. What a mistake.
It’s a shame because RS has done a lot of excellent reporting on political topics and on issues such as climate change. I hope they are able to pull through this one.
I’m no journalism major, but wouldn’t it make sense to fully explain who “Eramo” is (given that she’s central to the case) rather than just starting to use her surname alone in the 5th paragraph?
Rolling Stone’s conduct was reckless, even under the protections of the 1st Amendment, and that is why it is going to get slammed. I have read less, and understand less about the Gawker case (I don’t understand why if the guy agreed to be taped he gets to complain when it gets out on the news— it would seem he might have a lawsuit only against the guy who taped it, but I am assuming there is a lot more), but it was a seemly story that added nothing meaningful to anyone’s knowledge about anything meaningful and the lesson might be to be careful when you report a story that does nothing but embarrass someone who is in no position to hurt anyone else.