UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

Coming up next on CSPAN 2 a round table discussion on agenda journalism. It runs about an hour and a half.

JOHN HEILEMANN: Welcome to the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. We have a very distinguished panel here today. With us is Sarah Kliff of vox.com, Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly, Erik Wemple of the Washington Post and YankeeFan, a local coffee machine repairman. Welcome all.

First question is for Sarah Kliff. In the wake of the Rolling Stone story on rape at UVA, what is the future of agenda journalism?

SK: Well---

YF: I am gonna jump in here. The mainstream media is so biased and agenda-driven, it can not be trusted. That is why I turn to Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and National Review. No agenda there.

EK: That does not make sense.

YF: The media is never held accountable.

JH: Was Fox News held accountable for their fear-mongering on ebola?

YF: Bill Clinton.

 

Let's assume no false stories are reported in pursuit of a political agenda.

It's also about which stories you choose to report, and which ones you don't.

If Erdely had two stories she could have chosen to write, both involving gang rape in a fraternity house, and one was in a house whose members were rich, white, elites, and one was made up mostly of African-American football players, and she chose to write only about the rich white kids, that's an agenda driven decision.

And, if you only look for problems in the Catholic Church, in rich white fraternities, in the military, or in Michele Bachmann's home district, then that's the only places where you'll find problems. They might all be true, but it's still agenda driven.

 

You misunderstand me.

There are espresso repair men who do shitty jobs. They don't do a thorough job, which means they have to come back soon, or they over repair a machine by "hanging" expensive parts on it that are not necessary. Or they fix only the symptoms, but don't fix the underlying problem. (Like replacing a part damaged by hard water, but not replacing/installing the water softening filter that could prevent it.)

It's problem. Totally true.

And, it infuriates me to no end.

I understand that people are suspicious of service people. That's why I have a bigger problem with the issue than you do.

That's why I'm always surprised when when fellow journalists aren't the ones most offended by these kinds of things. Every time some issue of plagiarism, or factual mistakes, or whatever comes up, there are multiple people here who do not think they are fireable offenses. People here don't think anyone at RS should be fired.

If people not believing rape victims, or not treating them well when they come forward, is evidence of rape culture, what is evident when journalists do not call for any consequences for crimes against journalism.

 

Oooooo, I don't know if that's an allowable comparison. Better ask Meatie Head.

 

Right on schedule.

Exhibit A.

I'd love for shottie to give me one example of something a journalist did for which he/she deserved to get fired. And real world example will suffice.

 

It's reasons like this that I still believe something happened to Jackie (apologies if this has been mentioned already):

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/30/rape-justice-after-20-years

Liz Seccuro was a UVA student in the '80s, and was raped by, guess who, a frat bro from Phi Psi. In her first-person account, what she describes has a lot of similarities to Jackie's possibly misremembered, possibly exaggerated account. Her rapist got off scot-free after college administrators, police and hospital staff washed their hands of the incident.

The rub is that Seccuro's rapist reached out to her 20 years later to apologize, at which point he was formally charged and convicted of it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17634482/ns/health-mental_health/t/man-sentenced-rape-committed/#.VIm6ymOa-pg

I'd be very interested to see how that story would play out today. My guess is it'd be similar to Jackie's.

 

Is this for real?

She made up a boyfriend.

Weeks before.

She made up a boyfriend.

 

I don't think it's a coincidence that Phi Kappa Psi is the frat in Jackie's story. Not because Phi Kappa Psi has a thirty year history of gang rape, but because it was chosen based on Seccuro's story.

Jackie never told her friends what Fraternity she was at.

Erdely was certainly aware of Seccuro's story. It's part of why UVa "felt right" to her for the setting of her story. I think Phi Kappa Psi was suggested to Jackie by Erdely.

 

Others are corroborating the fact that she suffered some type of trauma in that time period.

 

I've said before, the denizens of this board are much, much too quick to scream, "Fire their asses," any time something is mishandled. That is just too easy to say without considering the life consequences to the people involved.

Actually, Erdley should lose her job for this. But my point remains.

 

They're corroborating the fact that she told them she suffered some type of trauma. Nobody witnessed that trauma.

As noted ... she made up the boyfriend.

It was a hoax from the first night.

 

YF, not to big-time anyone, but I am one of the most vocal, self-outed, working journalists in this board, correct? I'm not retired from the game, and while there are others way, way better, I do this at a fairly high level. I have been as critical of Erdley as anyone here. I find her reporting appalling, agree that left-leaning politics played a role in this disaster, and have been skeptical from the beginning trending toward outright hostile and accusatory in the last few days. I think Dana, Woods and Coco McPhearson should lose their jobs over this. Who are these theoretical journalists defending this garbage? There are outliers, apologists and unethical people in every field, and that is my point. The initial defense of Erdely ("Richard Bradley is a rape truther!") was disgusting. But most of it came from Erdely's friends or people whose credibility is seriously compromised on this issue. The majority of journalists following this scandal think Erdley is a disgrace and Rolling Stone's editorial process has harmed all of us. If you need help finding these people, let me know. But Erik Wemple and Hana Rosin and the entire Post Virginia staff have picked this story apart bit by bit and condemned it for the disaster it is. The people who defending this piece and attacked critics of it look like complete fools and their actions don't need "calling out" because they already exposed themselves as lacking credibility on this issue.

Are some journalists hesitating to pile on? Sure. But it isn't out of solidarity to Erdely. And the day Rolling Stone ran their "Note to Readers" was open season on the magazine on Twitter. Hundreds of journalists with incredible credentials were slamming them. So whatever broad brush you're painying us all with based on the actions of the misguided fringe, stop please. This affects my life and hurts my ability to do my job far more than you.