UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

It's going to be interesting to see if they continue to do pieces like this one. It really is. It'll be interesting to see if there's a tonal change in the current events content.

 

Bullshit.

I don't even know how/why what I have said could remotely be viewed as controversial.

Is it in question that Rolling Stone is a left-wing publication with a political agenda? Is there any doubt that what drew them to this story -- even to assigning Erdely to investigate the issue -- was that it was an opportunity to advance a political agenda?

And, that's why Erdely shopped around for a story that "felt right", isn't it?

And, it felt right because it was a white, elite fraternity, steeped in Southern culture. If a rape victim advocate had turned her on to different story, where the bad guys were African-American, do you really think that story would have "felt right" to Erdely? Do you think that would have been the story Erdely pursued, and that Rolling Stone would have published with no backing evidence, no sworn statements, not police/court records, no confirmation from her friends, and with no attempt to reach out to the accused?

It seems like you, and others, are uncomfortable answering this hypothetical. Why?

Why is not worth discussing? Because I said the villains in my hypothetical were African-American? Really? Even in a hypothetical, that makes you too squeamish?

We really are a nation of cowards in regards to race.

OK, how about if the villains are the Young Democrats, or the Editorial Staff of the campus newspaper, or the campus chapter of Green Peace, or any other bastion of liberals?

Would those stories have "felt right" to Erdely and Rolling Stone? Would they have met their confirmation bias?

This story -- though untrue -- only worked because of the setting, and because of the race and social status of the accused rapists.

 

It is not fact that a black fraternity would be given kid-glove treatment here, no matter how many times you say it.

I'm not even going to discuss this anymore. Not because I'm squeamish, but because it's nonsense.

ETA: You sound a little like Chuck Johnson here. The absence of the story is proof of what you're saying.

 

See, I agree. But I believe they were only willing to abandon all journalistic ethics because of the race and social status of the accused rapists.

 

I hope one or two of the seven rapists in Jackie's head were black.

 

OK. You disagree with me. That's fine. You're wrong, and I think you only refuse to engage the thought because it makes you uncomfortable, but that's fine.

But, for you to then try and question my motives is bullshit.

While acknowledging that we all have biases, I am nonetheless against all forms of bias. And, we can only address bias if we acknowledge it. And, folks here can't even acknowledge that they have biases towards fraternities that are unfair, and unwarranted.

They can't admit that fucking Rolling Stone has biases, and a political agenda, and that this story was an effort to advance a political agenda. And, if this story was an effort to advance a political agenda, then there is no reason to believe they would have published a similar story, that did not advance this political agenda.

 

A Rolling Stone is always eager to poke holes in the armor of the so-called "elite" as it is described by the music of Jann Wenner's youth.

Journalists who defended the story's factual challenges on the basis of the issue being too important, don't get to call themselves true Journalists.

 

Well, they tipped us of right away that Drew was not African-American. I mean, he worked at the Aquatic Center, he obviously wasn't African-American.

 

Cullen heard that rimshot and was all, What?

 

I have no problem with everyone being treated fairly when about to be accused of a crime.

I have a major problem with you claiming as fact that journalists don't care about accusing rich, white frat bros of a crime simply because they're rich, white frat bros.

And, it's downright comical that you believe journalists A) wouldn't write a story about black frat bros being accused of rape, or B) the story would have magically been written and edited better simply because of race, even if written and edited by the same exact shitty reporter and shitty editors.

It's also comical that you believe there's a huge cabal of liberal puppet masters who hold HIGHER fact-checking standards for black people than whites, given the almost nonexistent percentages of wrongfully accused white people and the astronomical percentages of black people both falsely accused and convicted of various crimes.

 

If the "political agenda" was "advocating for rape victims on college campuses," why would the story driving that agenda be any different if it involved black people?

Unless you're saying the "political agenda" was merely to use rape as a vehicle to smear rich, Southern white people.

 

I am as liberal as anyone on this board, and while admitting this leaves me somewhat uncomfortable, I actually agree with YF here (to an extent). I don't think Erdley would have written about this story if it happened at an HSBC. I think her own comments more or less confirm that. I don't think the Magazine would have peacocked about the story as much as it did if they'd discovered this incident at Howard University. Certainly feelings about privilege and wealth and patriarchy definitely were factors. They aren't hidden. She put them right in the story, woven a narrative around them, and may have made shit up (friends comments) that helped make her case. I don't think as a liberal I can sit here and point out all the biases I see on the right while pretending I have none of my own. I do have certain presumptions about fraternity guys, rich guys, popped-collar sporting assholes. And I know people had certain biases about me when I played football and was in conflict with kids like that. As Wemple pointed out, one of the more disheartening things about this episode is that it's Christmas for cats like YF, who have suspected liberals bend the news to fit their world view if not outright lie about it. And Sabrins Rubin Erdley is proof that does happen. I'd still contend it's at outlier, something shouted by people who aren't interested in much more than scoring points, but how can I deny that it doesn't happen? It's right there in the pages of Rolling Stone.

When I was in college, I lived across the hall from a kid from Niceville, Florida. Teammate and great dude. We had passionate debates about race and wealth and the media. It opened my eyes to so much. One thing he said always stuck with me. "Just because one person from a social group or a particular race does something awful does not indict the entire social group. But that is often what creates bias and prejudice in this county." And he's right. He was mostly talking about whites being angry at all black people for one black person (or even 10 black people) committing a crime against them. The power structure is obviously different and it's complicated when we are talking about something as clearly defined as race and comparing it to something as loosely connected as a fraternity, but the confirmation bias about not being able to see people as individuals is very similar. Erdley began this story with obvious assumptions about fraternity boys from wealthy backgrounds. When she heard Jackie's story, it clearly played into those assumptions, which is why she barely lifted a finger to check it out. If some cretin like Jonah Goldberg did this coming from the right, I just don't believe at all Rolling Stone would have been so quick to take it as truth.

Maybe a lot of fraternities do sexually assault women. (There is certainly evidence that supports this.)

Maybe rich white kids do often think they are Masters of the Universe and that women are their playthings. (Again, certainly evidence to support this.)

But these fraternity guys in this story are not hypothetical fraternity guys. The are actual individuals who deserved more that guilt by historical assumption. That's why they best journalists don't start with theories and search for facts. Perhaps the fame and wealth Malcolm Gladwell has acquired has confused many in my profession that this is a better approach, but it's not. And this and the Duke lax case are prime examples of very biased liberal assumptions leading to unfair assumptions about an entire group of people.

There are certainly publications that could and perhaps would have written stories about gang rape at black colleges and tries to use that as a starting point for a broader discussion about sexual assault and the serious problem it has become (or always was) on campuses. But RS isn't one of those publications. It doesn't make me a racist to concede that. I think it makes me realistic.