How Rolling Stone failed in its story of alleged rape at the University of Virginia

The Washington Post ^ | December 5, 2014 | Paul Farhi

[MinorityRepublican]

Journalists are paid to be skeptical and to distinguish facts from assertions: Don’t get too close to your sources and check what they tell you.

Rolling Stone magazine, it appears, ignored both principles in its explosive story, “A Rape on Campus.”

The 9,000-word article about Jackie, a University of Virginia freshman who alleged a frat-house gang rape, was apparently fraught from the beginning with gaps in basic reporting. The story’s writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, as well as a phalanx of editors, fact-checkers and lawyers who massaged the piece before publication, accepted Jackie’s account without locking down key details that would have confirmed, or at least plausibly substantiated, her harrowing tale.

[Nip]

So Sorry.

Unless the Rolling Stone and its reportette pay some heavy fines for this travesty what is to prevent them from repeating it?

An apology costs them nothing and will not prevent them from repeating this activity.

“No Pain, No Gain” isn’t limited to the gym.

[Dick Bachert]

Of the hundreds of colleges and universities here, I wondered WHY this leftist bitch of a hack fiction writer chose the University of Virginia as the setting for her destructive feminist fable. Then it hit me!

FILE THIS UNDER "ATTEMPTING TO KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE"

[EDINVA]

But I thought Blair was with WaPo before NYT? So many scandals, hard to track ‘em all!

[FredZarguna]

The Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi in a bizarre statement writes, “To be sure, Rolling Stone was under no obligation to prove that Jackie’s account was true.“

Apparently the legal department at the Washington Post is no better than the one at Wenner Media. To call this statement bizarre is enormously charitable: when you accuse a specific person or persons of committing a specific heinous crime at a specific time and place, that is defamation per se, and there is no First Amendment protection against defamation per se. All you've got as a defense in that case is the truth, and you had better have some.

Rolling Stone doesn't. Wenner Media is toast.

[The Antiyuppie]

“To be sure, Rolling Stone was under no obligation to prove that Jackie’s account was true. “

And this is why journalism majors make less money than your average burger-flipper, and have less respect and upward mobility too boot. Bonus: the burger guy isn’t holding back his 70K of student loan debt from his girlfriend.

Rolling Stone was occasionally capable of some interesting journalism, but that has been going south recently. This should steepen the decline. When the last of the burn-outs take the dirt nap and the wannabe hipsters grow up and get bored with it, the magazine’s finished.

[The Antiyuppie]

“I can’t understand why any girl would go to a frat party without a date, or better yet, with her own father. I recall being invited to such a party when I was about 20 or so and I was insulted just by the invitation. What’s wrong with these stupid girls?”

I think that depends on the frat, the school, and maybe the era. There were fraternities on our campus that were more respectable than I was.

[Rockpile]

Boy, you are right about the comments. TheComplete BS censors must be off snorting cocaine or something since it is Friday night.

[poinq]

I can’t believe the Washington Post has the nerve to criticize anyone on the topic of journalistic professionalism.

I think this post says it all:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/03/dear-media-this-elizabeth-lauten-nonsense-is-why-everybody-hates-you/

[Seaplaner]

”Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

Either that, or was it a story "just too good to fact check"?

.

[eyedigress]

Rolling Stone has gathered more moss than any publication in the last twenty years.

No surprise of this cackle of BS.

[MediaMole]

I read all 9000 words. She went to the party as the date of the supposed instigator of the rape.

Reading it, I was alternatively horrified and skeptical. The rape as described was not a close call. It was brutal, violent and clearly criminal. If it happened as described, there was no reason not to go to the police. She was brutalized and left bloody. There would have been evidence on the victim and in the room where the assault took place.

The worst people described in the story were the supposed victim’s friends who dissuaded her from reporting the brutal assault to avoid losing access to frat parties.

[Lisbon1940]

I think the rapists were worse than the friends.

[RinaseaofDs]

Great read. Thank you!

[KC_Conspirator]

To be sure, Rolling Stone was under no obligation to prove that Jackie’s account was true.

Get a load of this lovely quote. Oh really? Well if someone had the balls to prove this untrue, one would surely take Rolling Stone to court and sue their ass.

That being said, Rolling Stone has just did every rape victim a disservice.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Rolling Stone should stick to what it knows best; surveys of where the best drugs are produced...

[catnipman]

“I can’t understand why any girl would go to a frat party without a date, or better yet, with her own father. I recall being invited to such a party when I was about 20 or so and I was insulted just by the invitation. What’s wrong with these stupid girls?”

Heck, as a GUY I was repulsed back in the day as a freshman during frat “rush” week. All I saw were filthy houses and a bunch of drunks. I think the stupid girls went to the parties because they wanted to get illegally drunk for free.

[T Ruth]

Your #4 are my thoughts exactly.