UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

Is "significantly flawed" a euphemism in the vein of "bad experience"?

We just called it a "lie" in my day.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

Janet Cooke's article about Jimmy brought much needed attention to the plight of children addicted to drugs.

That's what we should remember about it, not that it was made up.

Why can't we do the same with this story?

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

Not gonna rant, but your attitude is part of what drives me kinda crazy about this site.

Assuming you weren't there, you don't know whether this girl was gang-rapied or this whole story is a giant fabrication. Neither do I.

But just like with the Ferguson case, that doesn't stop you or anyone else here from making declaratory statements as if you could possibly know the facts with any degree of certainty. Why is that?

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

Is it considered irony that "Shattered Glass" played a significant role in the piece? Maybe a sly shout-out to one of the writer's journalistic heroes?

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

You're confidence that the fake story is fake is what drives me crazy about this site.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

I don't know, I suppose, but the evidence leads to to the conclusion that it is exceedingly more likely than not that it is at least 99 percent bullshit, and probably even more than that.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

The parallels to Janet Cooke's article are interesting:

Yeah, maybe a story, based on anonymous sources, that doesn't ring true to industry veterans, should be given a second look before it goes to print, let alone before you submit it for a Pulitzer.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

Wait a minute, here.

In both interviews with the Post, Erdely acknowledged that "Jackie" is the alleged victim's real name, not a pseudonym. She also said she was withholding details about the alleged attackers at Jackie's request, because she was "fearful" of them, even though she spoke under her real name and offered up more than enough specificity for even the dumbest frat bro to figure out who she is and who she's talking about.

That makes no sense.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

First, I'm not sure what "evidence" we're talking about -- other than the reality that like Darren Wilson's account, the Rolling Stone story seems to be a textbook caricature of a fraternity gang-rape.

I guess maybe my experience is different than others' here. When I read it, I wasn't even surprised. Rape U has had a major problem with sexual assault for some time.

I just hope the story isn't a fabrication because it will be even more open season on women in Charlottesville if Rolling Stone gets publicly debunked.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

A good number of people here are/were crime reporters or investigative reporters. One gains a certain amount of seasoning from doing those things.

I would never assert something I don't know as fact, but I'm fairly confident that my opinion on such matters would be closer to the truth than those of someone who has never worked the beats I've worked.

The difference is, I'd be able to articulate that opinion and reasoning much better than Erdely has so far, and that hurts her credibility more than anything else.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

I think Bradley's point was a good one journalistically —you have to be extra careful that play to your assumptions. When people make stuff up, they usually do so in a way that makes the dialog sound like bad TV writing.

 

Re: Rolling Stone on rape at UVA

The cycle that this is in right now is fantastic, and so predictable:

(1) Everyone believes it. Outrage!

(2) Rolling Stone gloats like a publication has never gloated before.

(3) A few columnists out there bury a phrase like, "even though some of the details didn't ring true ..." into their pieces, but still universally condemn UVA and offer their deepest sympathies to Jackie.

(4) A few rogue bloggers and columnists dip their toe in the water - "Why didn't she use 'allegedly'"? Water seems warm.

(5) Some meatier criticisms are lobbed at the reporting, such as questioning why she didn't contact the alleged offenders.

(6) Bloggers, particularly of the right-wing persuasion but not exclusively, begin to question whether the story itself is actually 110 percent bullshit on a stick. Because of the reporter, of course.

(7) Jezebel loses its shit.

And we know where this goes next, too, of course, so get the popcorn out for the next 48-72 hours or so. The only question is which mainstream publication and reporter or columnist is going to go ahead and say, "Eh, fuck it." The Washington Post has been relatively aggressive, so that's the leader in the clubhouse, odds-wise. The Wall Street Journal's not a bad bet, either, maybe to show. It also wouldn't surprise me to see a Jeff Toobin, Ariel Levy, or Sarah Stillman go all-in today at The New Yorker.