Rolling Stone Fucks Up Big Time on Massive Rape Article

[Queequeg]

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

Virtually all details of the horrific gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity detailed in an engrossing Rolling Stone article last month are now either disputed our outright debunked. A terrific Washington Post investigation—which includes an interview with Jackie, the accuser—casts serious doubt on the narrative Jackie told to Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the original Rolling Stone piece.

In light of these developments, Rolling Stone is no longer standing by its story. In a statement to readers, Managing Editor Will Dana wrote:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

The "affected" parties include many at the University of Virginia. The college administration, which had assumed the allegations were true, responded to the story by suspending all fraternity activities and promising more vigorous policing of the campus's party scene.

But according to The Washington Post, Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity that Jackie insisted hosted the party where she was raped on September 28th, 2012, will assert that no such event took place and that none of its members worked at the university's swimming pool that semester—a detail important to the story, since Jackie had claimed that her date to the party, a key perpetrator in the assault, was a co-lifeguard.

According to WaPost, Jackie's friends no longer believe that she was truthful about what happened to her:

A group of Jackie's close friends, who are sex assault advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to Jackie but have come to doubt her account. They said details have changed over time, and they have not been able to verify key points of the story in recent days. A name of an alleged attacker that Jackie provided to them for the first time this week, for example, turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he did work at the Aquatic Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie's name. He said, however, that he had never met Jackie in person and had never taken her on a date. He also confirmed that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

Emily Renda, a friend of Jackie's and survivor of sexual assault who was quoted in the initial story, now tells WaPost that she feels misled:

Renda said on Thursday that Jackie initially told her that she was attacked by five students at Phi Kappa Psi on Sept. 28, 2012. Renda said that she learned months later that Jackie had changed the number of attackers from five to seven.

"An advocate is not supposed to be an investigator, a judge or an adjudicator," said Renda,a 2014 graduate who works for the university as a sexual violence awareness specialist. But as details emerge that cast doubt on Jackie's account, Renda said, "I don't even know what I believe at this point."

"This feels like a betrayal of good advocacy if this is not true," Renda said. "We teach people to believe the victims. We know there are false reports but those are extraordinarily low."

There is much more of this in the full Post story.

In light of all this new information, it's impossible to say what exactly happened to Jackie. But it's clear that her story, as told to Erdely, is false. Not slightly false, or partly false, but false. And if Rolling Stone had done its job, the magazine might well have determined that before such a journalistic catastrophe unfolded.

Read my previous report on the UVA situation—one of the earliest stories to express skepticism of Rolling Stone—here.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/uva-rape-story-retracted

[Martinus]

Why would that be news?

[Eddie Teach]

So because the guy's not a member of the frat, they consider the whole story debunked?  Surely people who aren't members visit the house from time to time. 

The number of attackers thing, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the other two were just kind of on the sidelines.

The evidence mentioned in the article doesn't seem sufficient to declare "But it's clear that her story, as told to Erdely, is false. Not slightly false, or partly false, but false."

[garbon]

Why would that be news?

Yeah I am not sure why everyone is picking this up.

[Norgy]

as a sexual violence awareness specialist

When you need this at a university, you have to many entitled frat boys.

[Ed Anger]

Rolling Stone isn't even worthy to line a bird cage.

[Admiral Yi]

as a sexual violence awareness specialist

When you need this at a university, you have to many entitled frat boys.

I would think it's more a function of too many entitled angry women's studies majors.

[Norgy]

Of course you would.

[Admiral Yi]

You win.

[Eddie Teach]

You win.

You seem to be throwing the towel in early a lot these days.

[CountDeMoney]

I would think it's more a function of too many entitled angry women's studies majors.

Erdely's 2011 story for Philadelphia Magazine, in which a woman alleged to have been raped by her gynecologist, was nominated for an American Society of Magazine Editors award. A 2012 story for Rolling Stone, alleging purported bullying of gay students in Minnesota, was similarly nominated.[1] Erdely's 2013 Rolling Stone story "The Rape of Petty Officer Blumer" chronicled the alleged drugging and rape of a U.S. Navy female petty officer by three U.S. Army soldiers.

Only thing worse than a bad freelance journalist is a bad freelance journalist (Penn) with an agenda.  Hers apparently happens to be rape-rape.  And Slate, the Washington Post and the LA Times have been questioning this writer's story since last week.  That's right, the Slate you all know and loathe, was at the forefront of the "Uh, really?" crowd.

Erdely admits she set out to find a sexual assault story at an elite school. She looked at lots of other colleges, but none "felt quite right," in the words of a Washington Post media column on the piece. But UVA — which Erdely would go on to describe in the Rolling Stone article as a school without a thriving "radical feminist culture seeking to upend the patriarchy" — was just right.

Erdely wouldn't tell the Washington Post if she made an effort to corroborate the story with Drew, let alone the pledges. Bizarrely, she won't even say whether she knows the rapists' real names. She seems more eager to talk about public policy than the facts she reported.

This is what happens when professional journalism dies;  bad, shitty journalism takes its place.



That being said, UVA is full of entitled douchebags, and all fucking frats should fucking hang. 

[Ideologue]

Wrongful accusations would never occur in the transparency society. Just saying.

[Admiral Yi]

I worked with a nice UVA grad.  Golfed with another UVA law group who was a bit of a douche.

[Ideologue]

Also, eugenics initiatives would also eventually lower the ratio of rapists in the population.

[Valmy]

That being said, UVA is full of entitled douchebags, and all fucking frats should fucking hang. 

Got blackballed at Towson eh?