UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

They didn't try to reach any of these people. They just took Jackie's word that they declined to be interviewed. (Full disclosure: I bet I've done this before. In fact, we all have, in a way, when a media relations person stonewalls us. The best you can do, short of bulldozing the flak, is to be very clear in your reporting that, "through spokesperson John Doe, coach Jack Roe declined to be interviewed for this story.")

This is almost more damaging in some ways than not talking to the accused. At least she contacted fraternity leadership, both locally and nationally. And with the accused, you could dismiss it as, "Well, what were they going to say anyway?"

In deep contrast, the friends would have been able to red flag Jackie's story for Erdely, without nearly the same degree of motive to lie:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

A friend of Jackie’s (who we were told would not speak to Rolling Stone) told the Washington Post that he found Jackie that night a mile from the school's fraternities. She did not appear to be "physically injured at the time" but was shaken.

The Washington Post continues to be pissed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/07/updated-apology-digs-bigger-hole-for-rolling-stone/?tid=pm_opinions_pop

On the topic of the reachability of these friends, Rolling Stone commits perhaps the most self-damaging parenthetical in the history of journalistic self-assessment. It comes from the magazine’s “note to readers”: “A friend of Jackie’s (who we were told would not speak to Rolling Stone) told the Washington Post that he found Jackie that night a mile from the school’s fraternities.” Bold text added to highlight an un-get-pastable problem: Rolling Stone is in possession of a gang-rape allegation that includes a broken glass table, seven assailants and penetration with a bottle. Not only does it not have an official complaint, it has agreed not to contact the accused AND it has apparently accepted the affirmation of some interested party that a pivotal source isn’t really up for an interview.

 

So, Dana's signature is back on the editor's note/apology? Wasn't it taken off when they first revised it?

 

Stop getting sidetracked from the real story here.

 

Wait till the first Uber rape.

 

The details do matter.

Margaret Talbot in the New Yorker:

 

While you two jerk each other off, it has to be said that this line of thinking is so over-the-top ridiculous it's not even funny.

The end result of Rolling Stone's shitty reporting is not "Erdely's story is bullshit, therefore rape on college campuses is not a problem." It's not even "Erdely's story is bullshit, therefore rape on UVA's CAMPUS is not a problem."

This is a giant, and rightful, distraction from the real problem, because people were manipulated into reading about it based on a partly false premise. Lying to people isn't the way to get their attention to an issue.

I'd bet good money I could write a properly sourced and properly edited story that shows without a doubt that rape on college campuses is a huge problem. But, if anyone wants to deny it, be my guest. You'll look like an absolute fool if you do. And, yes, I'll bet every dollar I have that frat bros and their acquaintances make up a good percentage of that problem.

 

I emphasize for about the 10th time that the Outside piece on a youth swimming rape managed to both indicate that the woman's story has shifted and take her accusations seriously.

It can be done. The difference is that unlike Erdely and Rolling Stone, it's likely that the Outside writer had not internalized a talking point/mantra - "Don't doubt a survivor."

 

India just banned Uber in New Dehli for that very reason.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/08/uber-banned-in-new-delhi/

 

I'm not sure what in your post you think I disagree with.

And, yes, I'll bet every dollar I have that frat bros and their acquaintances make up a good percentage of that problem.

I'd like to know what percentage of those that make up the problem (at big schools, with major sports programs) are scholarship athletes.

How many of the rapists that are sharing a college campus with your daughter/sister/niece were specifically recruited their by campus administrators because they could trow a football or shoot a basketball?

 

Well sure, but many have told us not to focus on the "minutia" or "minor discrepancies".

 

It's a parable, not history