Discussion: Rolling Stone Gang Rape Story Unravels Even Further As Key Witnesses Dispute Account

Discussion for article #231046

The only story here is how much this entire sorry episode sets back the efforts of those who have been raped in seeking justice, or even being willing to come forward with an accusation.

And oh yeah…it’s plays right into the hands of the conservative noobs at Faux, Redstate, etc. who are now once again screeching about

“campus rape culture” – a collective crime every male student is presumed guilty of.

over at Redstate…


Rubin wrote that Randall declined to be interviewed…

Who is Rubin?


If this girl Jackie and Rolling Stone Magazine exaggerated or made up the whole story, shame on them.

Had to dig pretty deep for your answer

This is from todays WaPo article

The Rolling Stone article also said that Randall declined to be interviewed, “citing his loyalty to his own frat.” He told The Post that he never was contacted by Rolling Stone and would have agreed to an interview. The article’s writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, did not respond to requests for comment this week.

I guess Rubin is Erderly’s middle name and not just a sandwich.


I am so disappointed in Rolling Stone. I always had high respect for their journalism. Not to mention how they have now contributed to the “girls make it all up to destroy boys’ reputations” meme.


Not only that, the name Erdely is used five times but never explained. At least that one is clear to anyone who’s read previous reporting on the subject, whereas Rubin may not have stuck, but both would be a mystery to anyone new to the subject. Just sloppy, sloppy reporting.


In interviews with The Washington Post and Slate.com last week, writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely declined to answer repeated questions about the men’s response to an allegation by a female student named Jackie that they had sexually assaulted her at a U-Va. fraternity party in 2012.

I believe she wrote the RS story but has been called Erdely in most reporting

1 Like

RS says they will stay on this story and do more digging to get to the “real” story.

Uh, great. Shouldn’t that have been the objective the first time 'round?


Some of the details may be in dispute, but the main one, that she was raped, does not seem to be in question.


I am so happy that I was just too busy at work to weigh in on this story as it unfolded.
Even now, I’m just gonna stay out of it,

1 Like

Erdely and Rolling Stone have managed to victimize Jackie all over again.

1 Like

My strategy as well. I’m going to wait until it’s more or less clear what really happened and at that point I will weigh in with, “I knew it! That’s what I’ve been saying all along.”


[quote=“nofunatall, post:10, topic:14230, full:true”]
Some of the details may be in dispute, but the main one, that she was raped, does not seem to be in question.[/quote]

Really? On what planet?


Correct, it’s not in question. It’s certified total BS.


There are people on the right and left who will believe ANYTHING that fits their agenda, and will call you names if you disagree. I’ve seen plenty on here, and even more when I comment on the FOX site, who are ten times worse. You could show them a video of Obama being born in a Hawaii hospital, and they will still say the gubbermint staged it…


That is actually the problem because the validity of the entire story is in question. It always starts with a drip here and a drip there and then the dam breaks. It is a matter of time until the author admits to fabricating the entire story. Of course some on the left will just say, “Well it isn’t like these things are going on, so at least some attention given to the rape culture on college campuses”.

1 Like

Why do you contemplate the whole story being made up by RS when Jackie’s friend Randall who is himself a member of a fraternity confirms that she was distraught that night? And that all three friends report they tried to be supportive at the time? This is what they said to WAPO.

So Rolling Stone did not make the whole thing up…Jackie made the claim directly to them and her three friends report to WAPO that they believe something happened that night because of how distraught Jackie was.

Exaggeration on Rolling Stone’s part is another question as is the question of Jackie’s credibility.

Two points on that:

  1. If you were planning to procure your date for sexual exploitation at a frat would you want that date to have your real name?

  2. If you had been gang raped how safe would you feel identifying by name or otherwise the people involved?


With one in five women willing to be surveyed reporting to the CDC that they have been raped there is indeed a problem with “rape culture.”


Either men and women have very different ideas about what constitutes rape or a few men are giving the majority of men a very bad reputation.

Au contraire, there is evidence that (a) she was very, very upset, and (b) that she gives false details. Oh, and © that RS employs EXTREMELY sloppy professional staff as well as outright fabricators. That’s all.

1 Like