Rolling Stone Fucks Up Big Time on Massive Rape Article

[OttoVonBismarck]

It looks like the WaPo has dug up even more information on Jackie. For one, it appears that she actually created a fake boyfriend her freshman year. She told several of her friends (including a male friend, "Randall" whom she appears to have been interested in) that she was dating an upperclassmen. She produced fake text message from him, used a random student's (whom she had never met, but I guess found his picture on Facebook) picture as evidence of her beau and etc. Based on what her friends say, she did all of this to try and make Randall jealous, so that he would direct his amorous attentions to Jackie.

Additionally it appears likely (though not confirmed) that "Randall" was the male friend that Ederly claims she tried to interview, but who had responded via email that he couldn't speak out of loyalty to his fraternity. Randall says he would have been happy to speak to Rolling Stone, regardless of his fraternity association, and that he had never been contacted. That means it's quite likely Jackie sent Ederly to a fake email address run by Jackie herself, not Randall.

FWIW Randall, who reports on what appears to be Jackie's borderline mentally ill level of deception on various issues, also says he was Jackie's friend and he was there the night she was assaulted. He said that she claimed she was forced to have oral sex, she was not covered in blood (the RS narrative is she was gang raped on broken glass, and was covered in a shredded, bloody dress when she hysterically told her friends about it, friends who, due to association with the fraternity system told her not to report the rape) but that she did seem legitimately traumatized. So was Jackie sexually assaulted? I say it's possible. Was she gang raped by 7 dudes in an elaborate rape porn narrative that the Rolling Stone reported on? I don't think so, based on what we know. But even a nutter can be the legitimate victim of a sexual assault, and of course any sexual assault is very bad, even if the victim is generally a liar about other things and for various reasons decided to vastly exaggerate the nature of the assault.

WaPo made a really good point, Ederly investigated dozens of campus sexual assaults. Most of them were all very vanilla "same narrative" stories, largely "girl gets too drunk at a frat party, wakes up and realizes she was date raped." Those are all tragedies, but also "not pulp fiction." Jackie's story was basically rape horror porn, a young girl brutally gang raped on a pile of broken glass and then told by her closest friends not to report anything because her friends had greater loyalty to the fraternity system than to her. WaPo says if Ederly had all this information on tons of other campus rapes, all of which followed a common narrative, and one that was extraordinary stuff, she should have done a lot of due diligence on the outlier story to verify it. Instead it seems Ederly just started drooling at the mouth and rushed to press with it, doing not even the base amount of fact checking journalistic ethics requires.

[CountDeMoney]

WaPo made a really good point, Ederly investigated dozens of campus sexual assaults. Most of them were all very vanilla "same narrative" stories, largely "girl gets too drunk at a frat party, wakes up and realizes she was date raped." Those are all tragedies, but also "not pulp fiction." Jackie's story was basically rape horror porn, a young girl brutally gang raped on a pile of broken glass and then told by her closest friends not to report anything because her friends had greater loyalty to the fraternity system than to her. WaPo says if Ederly had all this information on tons of other campus rapes, all of which followed a common narrative, and one that was extraordinary stuff, she should have done a lot of due diligence on the outlier story to verify it. Instead it seems Ederly just started drooling at the mouth and rushed to press with it, doing not even the base amount of fact checking journalistic ethics requires.

Oh yeah, she finally found the douchebag porridge to be just right at UVA.  It had to be the right crime with the right victim, but it doesn't work without the right school.

[DontSayBanana]

It's looking more and more like Rolling Stone's fuck-up was not blacklisting Erdely after 2011.  Apparently, another of her Rolling Stone articles (on sex abuse by the clergy in Philadelphia) is in hot water for not vetting sources and relying almost unilaterally on a guy who seems to have fabricated every incident of rape he reported.

This woman needs to get out of investigative journalism, stat.

[Legbiter]

What a bizarre thing. You know who should be the most angry at this girl? Real rape victims.

I've never seen anyone been so politely characterized as a relentless, psychopathic liar. Yet WaPo never just outright says it, just matter-of-factly tiptoes around that glaring observation. 

[grumbler]

What a bizarre thing. You know who should be the most angry at this girl? Real rape victims.

I've never seen anyone been so politely characterized as a relentless, psychopathic liar. Yet WaPo never just outright says it, just matter-of-factly tiptoes around that glaring observation. 

I think the Post is less willing to let its ass show than you, is all.  For instance, you are willing to use the phrase "psychopathic liar' when the post would probably use the actual term, "pathological liar."  But, in order to do that, they would probably feel obliged to use the term's actual meaning, unlike you, who can make up the meaning for your made-up words.

The Post has a lot to answer for, but, at least, it is not you.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, psychopathic and liar are both real words, so not made up. Maybe you meant "made up terms?" But even then, his term has logical consistency, no reason it doesn't make sense to use those two words that way if you believe this Jackie woman is a psychopath. I rule it was not a violation. ~fin

[11B4V]

  WTF

[Eddie Teach]

WTF

I had this very reaction to your Guardians of the Galaxy review. 

[11B4V]

WTF

I had this very reaction to your Guardians of the Galaxy review. 

I know, I had to be "that" guy. 

[Legbiter]

I think the Post is less willing to let its ass show than you, is all.  For instance, you are willing to use the phrase "psychopathic liar' when the post would probably use the actual term, "pathological liar."  But, in order to do that, they would probably feel obliged to use the term's actual meaning, unlike you, who can make up the meaning for your made-up words.

The Post has a lot to answer for, but, at least, it is not you.

[The Brain]

Since when does psychopathic liar mean pathological liar?

[11B4V]

I think G-man is saying, a psychopath can be/is a pathological liar. But there's no such term as a psychopathic liar. *SHRUGS*

[Siege]

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

But, we have the moat transparent administration evah!!