Discussion for article #230882
This makes me physically ill. We have no idea what exactly is false. What RS doesn’t trust and what they do.
Reading comments elsewhere (places full of gleeful trolls) is discouraging. Ugh.
Without question, this is the most inappropriate use of the Twitter medium ever. Jesus, if anything ever required a long piece of prose rather than not 144 character spurts, it’s this right here.
8 Likes
Could RS act any more despicably? The original statement reads “our trust in her was misplaced.” In other words, she lied to us. Yet they offer no specifics. And it’s not clear at all from the Wapo story what the facts are at this point. We’re in she said / he said territory. And then this: “4 / We should have either not made this agreement with Jackie… 5/…or worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.” So Rolling Stone lets story subjects dictate how they’re going to do journalism? It’s her fault you messed up? “The failure is on us” - except for these parts over here. Unfcking real. What horrible people.
5 Likes
Long piece of prose and full page ads in the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, …
I think it’s great that he wrote this at all – he’s absolutely right, it’s RS’s fault entirely for not doing the job of an investigative journalist or editor – but yeah, what a weird way to get the word out. Blame Jackie in one place, “correct” that impression elsewhere. Huh?
Edit: I was a bit harsh, they actually did 10x the exhaustive reporting that’s typical in, say, conservative media sources. Unfortunately they failed in a couple critical spots.
1 Like
Misplaced trust?? How about incompetence? Aren’t journalists supposed to vet their sources?
2 Likes
I think, even worse, is the fact that “Jackie” had asked Erdley to not include her in the article, and Erdley refused to drop her. Now they blame it all on the victim? Because neither their reporter or “fact-checking” department (Do they even have those any more - it doesn’t feel like it!) did their jobs? At all? Many a piece has been scuttled because the facts could not be confirmed. But I have never heard, except like in circumstances like George Will’s at the Post that allows him to fact-check his own “scientific opinion” pieces, of an editor agreeing to not fact-check a piece. Ever. It’s just asking for trouble. And especially on such a hot-button topic such as this one.
The sad part, though, is that they will not be the ones most harmed by this. Most harmed will be the scores of legitimate rape victims, the ones who will no longer tell their stories for fear of disbelief. Those who have already told their stories and will now be targeted and harrassed for “lying”. All of the women who have been targeted by so-called “Men’s rights” groups and other misogynistic trolls for standing up for their sister’s and will now have even more of their vitriol. ("And now we have “proof”! George Will’s “rape victim as campus stars” was right!)
Rolling Stone has conflated the questioning of their practices, and their own failure to properly do their jobs, with “proof” that “Jackie’s” story is not true. They have also decided to victimize “Jackie” again rather than placing the blame where it belongs - with themselves and their misplaced trust in their reporter. It can be argued as to whether she was an “actual” rape victim, but what cannot be argued is that RS has now victimized her by stealing her story (she no longer wanted it told), then blaming their unscrupulous behavior (not checking the veracity of their reporter’s story) on one of the subjects of the story. Classy.
They couldn’t have done more harm to the movement of increased accountability for campus sexual assault if they had been a Vice reporter. Thanks RS!
3 Likes
Well said. I’m just spluttering at this point. I didn’t find this shit at all adding to the discourse:
“As someone who defended “Jackie” and the story all week, I felt let down, and then realized with some disgust I was disappointed that she had not been raped.”
What the heck is going on here? a) She should have been raped!?! That would have made you happier? Who thinks this way? and b) None NONE of the stuff that has come out in the last 24 hours is in any way disproves the initial accusations. We’ve gotten a boatload of pushback from the frat’s lawyers written up by a sympathetic Washington Post reporter. Case closed? I don’t think so. And the university president is certainly not approaching the situation that way. C’mon Josh.
1 Like
This smells like one of those cases that needs to be taken to a grand jury that’s presented with all the evidence. May the most powerful and politically connected be exonerated.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will ever be, oligarchy without end, amen.
That’s happened since there’s been rape, and we still don’t yet know whether this very story is yet another example.
This is what happens when a society only pays attention to news that is sensationalized. (Not an excuse for RS, just an observation.) Most people will not watch TV news that is presented in a calm, rational manner, they will change channels to a network that is all lathered up. People just love their news TMZ-ified. Look at the arc of CNN over the years. They have changed to their present “format” to try and keep market share, and this is driven by the viewing public.
Pinson all you have to do is read into the discrepancies and see she is lying. She left the party after this brutal rape by 9 involved men. Told her 3 FRIENDS and they discourage her from going to hospital that night because it might hurt their opportunities to go to frat parties the rest of the year??? How ridiculous is that. In fact on that Richard Bradley’s blog a real rape victim said she was raped on Virginia campus and did not report it. She confronted the guy and threatened to report him to police later on. She said he was scared chitless. After 2 weeks she figured that was enough punishment. But she said her friends were livid and it’s all they talked about for a month. If your friend told you she just had been brutally gang raped by 7 guys at a frat party and is bleeding etc… What do you do? I’d say I would be freaking livid and say I am going to get the bastards. Not think “oh we should not take you to hospital as we won’t be able to be invited to parties anymore.” Also that party was a date party meaning the guys in the dark room left dates downstairs at the party and hid in a dark room hoping the Drew guy will entice the girl upstairs so they can rape her. No one talked? No rumors? The guys after raping her do not smell of sex or bleeding. The frat covered it all up? These are also not rednecks but people with alot to lose if they are charged with rape. I am barely breaking the surface on this story. It’s fake. Even Jackies friends from the rape advocate group are on record saying they think something happened but not sure what and don’t believe the story as told. One on record said she said 7 then changed to 5 guys. This is a 20 year old telling this story and as you can see. If you get away from the upsetting allegation. Start asking questions and fact checking it falls apart.
A more sinister note is brought up by someone on Bradley’s blog site. That Jackie who in article could have went to Ivy league school but parents could not afford it. She went to Virginia without visiting. The claim is she was failing in her grades and then started telling people the rape story after the incident which the fraternity is disputing simple facts. Such as no party the weekend of attack. The Drew guy was not a member of fraternity and he was interviewed by Washington Post. Drew says he worked at that Aquatic place and knew of Jackie but never actually met her and is not a member of that fraternity.
LOOK rape and sexual assault are awful. I was PO’d seeing that Ray Rive video. But mass hysteria over an ill fact checked story and harrassing possibly innocent people is just as bad. That Rolling Stone editor ought to be FIRED. Me thinks Rolling Stone and the reporter were looking for away to report about sexual assault on college campuses which is a legit story. They saw a juicy story to sell. Facts be damned. I think it’s pathetic and that editor should be removed.
2 Likes
They’re still not telling us anything about what parts of the story they think are false and which they stand by. Are they saying the fact of rape is in question or just the details of the frat party? I don’t understand. This just seems like serious ass covering that has nothing to do with clarifying.
Imagine Fox News apologizing for a story that they got wrong…I doubt they would.