UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

[PW2]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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

 

[PW2]

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.

 

[Songbird]

Wait till the first Uber rape.

 

[YankeeFan]

The details do matter.

Margaret Talbot in the New Yorker:

There are people who will argue that if Jackie was assaulted at a fraternity that night, it doesn't matter if the specific details are wrong, or uncertain. Erdely herself seemed to be gravitating toward that point when she said, on Slate's DoubleX podcast, "Given the degree of her trauma, there's no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night. What exactly happened—I don't know. I wasn't in that room. I don't know." As Rosin and Benedikt point out, that's the nature of reporting: the reporter is almost never in the room. But the specific details of an accusation do matter. Erdely must have chosen this case, among all the other campus sexual assaults she could have reported, precisely because its details were so horrible that she knew it would get our attention.

http://nyr.kr/1s3xzTl

 

[MisterCreosote]

We're on the ninth page of this thread. And there's a second one purring along quite briskly.

I'd hate to see what happens if conversation isn't shut down.

And yes, this does count even if it's supposed to be a sports journalists' message board.

Public statements from people in positions of power are almost universally in lockstep. Every columnist, save for a few voices in the wilderness, feel compelled to caveat everything they write by explaining to us that Jackie's story being false changes nothing about what the story was "really about."

100%.

The "broader message" is that we must address this insidious problem, that this story is apparently not at all indicative of.

Frats are still terrible places that would gladly gang rape co-eds. And, elite, white, and Southern frat houses are the most likely to prey upon women, and treat them in an inhumane way.

And, the fact that Jackie's story has "some discrepancies" doesn't mean we should get bogged down in the "minutiae" of these discrepancies.

And, if there are frat brothers with the nicknames of Armpit and Blanket -- though there probably are not -- or a brother that worked at the pool, who could be easily associated with the characters in this story, well, too damn bad. They aren't victims. They are part of a misogynistic patriarchy that encourages a rape culture on campus. Jackie is the victim in this story, no mater what the facts.

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 shirtty reporting is not "Erdely's story is bullshirt, therefore rape on college campuses is not a problem." It's not even "Erdely's story is bullshirt, 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.

 

[PW2]

The details do matter.

Margaret Talbot in the New Yorker:

There are people who will argue that if Jackie was assaulted at a fraternity that night, it doesn't matter if the specific details are wrong, or uncertain. Erdely herself seemed to be gravitating toward that point when she said, on Slate's DoubleX podcast, "Given the degree of her trauma, there's no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night. What exactly happened—I don't know. I wasn't in that room. I don't know." As Rosin and Benedikt point out, that's the nature of reporting: the reporter is almost never in the room. But the specific details of an accusation do matter. Erdely must have chosen this case, among all the other campus sexual assaults she could have reported, precisely because its details were so horrible that she knew it would get our attention.

http://nyr.kr/1s3xzTl

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."

 

[The Big Ragu]

The details do matter.

Margaret Talbot in the New Yorker:

There are people who will argue that if Jackie was assaulted at a fraternity that night, it doesn't matter if the specific details are wrong, or uncertain. Erdely herself seemed to be gravitating toward that point when she said, on Slate's DoubleX podcast, "Given the degree of her trauma, there's no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night. What exactly happened—I don't know. I wasn't in that room. I don't know." As Rosin and Benedikt point out, that's the nature of reporting: the reporter is almost never in the room. But the specific details of an accusation do matter. Erdely must have chosen this case, among all the other campus sexual assaults she could have reported, precisely because its details were so horrible that she knew it would get our attention.

http://nyr.kr/1s3xzTl

Of course details matter. Unless you are marketing your piece as fiction.

There is no revelation in saying "the details do matter." It's why Rolling Stone is dealing with flack. People started picking away at the details in the story.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Wait till the first Uber rape.

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

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

 

[YankeeFan]

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 shirtty reporting is not "Erdely's story is bullshirt, therefore rape on college campuses is not a problem." It's not even "Erdely's story is bullshirt, 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'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?

 

[YankeeFan]

There is no revelation in saying "the details do matter."

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

 

[heyabbott]

It's a parable, not history