UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

No. It's that people won't trust the victims any more.

 

Well, I think there is a strong case now for at least abandoning the default position that you believe the victim no matter what. Take the accusations seriously, sure. But that particular policy is what enabled Jackie to do what she's done.

 

His next blog post was just as good:

 

I don't think any reasonable person thinks the victim should always be believed "no matter what." In fact, in practice, I'd bet more people have the default position that the victim is exaggerating or that there was some "misunderstanding" regarding consent, rather than there being an actual rape.

The real problem, as I see it, is all the times when victims come forward and some guy pats them on the ass and says, "well, maybe you shouldn't drink so much next time."

 

This whole fiasco also feeds my growing unease with partisan politics in general. Politics is a huge subtext of this, and the "rape culture" debate in general. I'm seeing smart people, statistically inclined people, spout the "1 in 5" and "2 percent" figures like they are gospel. It's unbelievable. Like gun control, ideology has 100 percent hijacked this conversation.

 

I don't believe this is the case any more. Check out the reaction to Jackie's story. Check out the comments, if they are still up anywhere, that accompanied the story itself and subsequent follow-ups. Almost universally swallowed it all hook, line, sinker.

 

And, isn't that why RS, Erdely, and Jackie came up with a story where, conveniently, there was no alcohol involved on Jackie's behalf, and where there was no question of consent?

It was the perfect crime. Sympathetic victim. Easily vilified perpetrators. No one could criticize any of the victims actions, and the assaulter could make no claim that they thought the act(s) was/were consensual.

And, this was the case that was supposed to focus our attention on the rape culture on college campuses, at UVa specifically, and in fraternities in general.

But, this case turns out to be completely false (not just "off" in a few "details", and even if it had been true, it would have been a total outlier as far as the vast majority of reported campus rapes. (Yet, we were also supposed to believe that this episode was part of a systematic initiation process, that had surely gone on for years, not just at this Fraternity, but surly at others too.)

This was agenda journalism from start to finish.

And, the takeaway should not be to disbelieve rape victims. The takeaway should be to not believe agenda journalism.

 

Well, yeah.

Everything is political. That's why I laugh when people say that I "make things political". If you're not talking about the political motivations and ramifications of a topic, you're leaving out a big part of the conversation.

When people are trying to bring about social change, or fight for government funding, and "ends justifies the means" attitude can take hold.

And, not only do journalists -- like everyone else -- have their own biases, but we see so many enter the field with the express -- and clearly stated -- intent to "make a difference".

Journalists don't want to tell stories; to report stories. They want to set an agenda, choose the topics for conversation, and demand change based on the stories they tell. And, if their are some "discrepancies" in their reporting, so be it.

 

A Rolling Stone story that unraveled won't stop the next crusading journalist writer from spinning a yarn to make a difference.

 

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but as you well know there is a world of difference between rape and sexual violence when the latter has been defined so broadly as to include "attempted forced kissing" and (believe it or not) "withholding sex and affection." Such broad definitions make it much more likely that a given sexual assault complaint (note, not an accusation of rape) is rooted in a misunderstanding.

 

I certainly agree with your last point.

I still disagree that Jackie was in on the agenda. She's obviously suffered some sort of trauma, and probably of a sexual nature. She's suffering, whether it be from PTSD or another mental illness.

The cynic in me says she'd be the perfect patsy for a reporter with an agenda to manipulate into telling a fantastical story. That's why I still put 95 percent of this on Erdely and RS. To dismiss whatever Jackie is suffering from because of irresponsible journalism is exactly the kind of thing I worried would happen. If that makes me part of the "victim advocacy" crowd, so be it.

You're doing that thing again, where you take the actions of the worst among us and apply them to all of us.