He does that.
Posted on 04/05/2015 5:33:34 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
"Rolling Stone’s fundamental mistake, Mr. Dana said, was in suspending any skepticism about Jackie’s account because of the sensitivity of the issue."
...
“We didn’t think through all the implications of the decisions that we made while reporting the story, and we never sort of allowed for the fact that maybe the story we were being told was not true,”
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Like religious conservatives and the victims of the reverse discrimination of affirmative action, fraternities (unless they are black) have been completely marginalized by the Bolshevik Revolution of 2008. Those that can’t be “fundamentally transformed” (read: destroyed in their current form) will be attacked until they “ride in back”...
If you look at her statement (link below) she sorta, kinda included the fraternity when she apologized “to the U.V.A. community.”
More striking was the lack of an apology from the UVA President to the fraternity. Her statement ran immediately below the writers apology.
Got the feeling a lot of lawyers are working overtime on this one.
Funny thing: that president was fired about 2 years ago by the “Board of Visitors.” Students and faculty went ballistic and she was hired back. Gotta wonder how many fraternity/sorority members participated in the rallies, etc. to get her back.
He does that.
“The report ... said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal ... described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone ... said ... that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine”
Yeah, that’ll DEFINITELY enhance RS’s future credibility, you know, retaining a writer who failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice”. But, hey, maybe that’s pretty much the standard for RS “journalism” anyway, so there’s nothing unusual enough here to warranty firing the “journalist”.
At this point....the university and the frats have a case to sue Rolling Stone in court. We aren’t talking a lousy couple of million...this could go into the fifty million range.
I’d say that Rolling Stone is now on marginal survival ground. Even admitting this in public....they’ve set the stage for dissolving the magazine. I’d give them between two and four years left. Figure court action, an appeal process, and then empty out the remaining funds that they have. Lousy way to go but they deserve it.
The red diaper doper babies didn’t think that the seriousness of the charge of KGB infiltration into the State Department, media, academia, etc. was a valid excuse for the “excesses” of “McCarthyism”.
NYet Times doesn't put shirtless photos of Justin Beiber on the front page.
Clarence Thomas is being lynched anew as Antia Hill has a documentary out now and she’s visiting school children to speak out against that “horrible black man” on the Supreme Court.
The reporter should receive the same sentence that the rapist would have received.
Well come on man, if we didn’t have false accusations of rape on College campuses then how can we push feminism and stuff?
Like Ray Donovan said, “fine. now where do I go to get my reputation back?” Rolling Stone should be hit by a multi-million dollar lawsuit as well as the lying female dog who promoted the story in the first place
Libel suits are tough, but thankfully, Rolling Stones has provided enough evidence to support a libel claim. I think.
Add in the reporter and add in the lying slut who claimed rape in the first place. Bearing false witness is an actionable crime (and a mortal sin) and the bimbo needs to get hit hard with money damages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.