UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

Not really. She made journalistic decisions, knowingly.

And YF, the discussion has been illuminating on several fronts and its many tangents.

 

I stole it from a comment I heard on talk radio. I think it was either Hugh Hewitt or Mark Steyn* who said it.

* Usual apologies to JayFarrar for referencing people he's never heard of in a way that suggest everyone knows who they are.

 

Let's lay out the possibilities of what happened that night:

1. Jackie was raped the way she said she was, only at a different fraternity, and her friends are lying about some stuff to the Post. (.0000000000000000001 chance this happened, but indulge me.)

2. Jackie was forced to give oral sex to five men as she told her friends that night, even if Drew does not exist.

3. Jackie fabricated both Drew and the entire incident, told an entirely fake story to Erdley, who bought it in part because Jackie also faked emails and texts from her friends, sent them to Erdley as confirmation of her story.

4. Jackie fabricated Drew, the incident, told a fake story to Erdley, Erdley didn't check it out because of laziness or because she saw an anecdote that would help the story explode on-line and she didn't want it to fall apart if it was closely examined.

5. Jackie fabricates Drew, the incident, tells a fake story to Erdley, Erdley does some initial fact checking, Jackie gets cold feet, Erdley decides the story is too good to back away from so she fudges some details, writes it up cinema style, and assumes because it's all anonymous no one will ever know she faked much of it. Erdley also then misleads her own magazine in the fact checking process.

6. Jackie is an Brietbart double agent, secretly working for years to undermine libruhls, women's advocacy groups and Rolling Stone, who hilariously believed this tale, just as we suspected they would.

Now, let's say RS apologizes to this fraternity after learning scenario 1 is true. "We are sorry we labeled the wrong rapists. But here is our story about the real rapists, who we have properly identified this time. Trust us."

Scenario No. 2 turns out to be true: "We are sorry we said this was a 7-man gang rape involving a bottle, but really we've learned it was a forced oral sex gang rape."

Scenario No. 3: "Even though this puts us in the uncomfortable position of victim blaming, we've learned that Jackie was an incredible fabulist herself, and faked text messages from her friends, pictures of Drew, phone calls from him, ripped her own dress, etc., and while we could have been more skeptical, you can see how this might have happened with the lengths this girl went to in an effort to deceive our excellent reporter and fact checkers. We apologize, but man, can't you see how a crazy person took us for a ride?"

Scenario No. 4: "Our reporter is a awful, we apologize and will prepare for the libel suits. I'm sure this apology will be used against us in court. Fuck. Any chance Gawker is hiring?"

Scenario No. 5: "Turns out our reporter has been doing shit like this for years, and we are now bracing for dozens of lawsuits. Apology to this frat, here are some unreleased Springsteen deep cuts off Born To Run sessions that should pay for your spring mixer for the next 50 years."

Scenario No. 6: "Apologies, but this is really the fault of a vast right-wing conspiracy."


Why not wait until you know for certain what you're dealing with instead of having issue three, four, five apologies in addition to being deposed?

 

Well, you're not exactly hearkening back the good old days.

 

I think our campus was really sheltered. In the midst of all this Rolling Stone stuff, my wife and I were talking the other night about whether we could remember a single rape accusation during our time there. We couldn't.

There was supposedly one at our house like 5-10 years before I got there, and I think they might have even had to re-charter after it. As the story went - and this is just what I was told - the woman was drunk and in the dark and thought it was her boyfriend, or something along those lines. The legend was that the fraternity stole every school newspaper on campus the day it broke, and hid it in this area of the house, where they still remained. I looked and looked for those newspapers, but never found them. So no idea about the veracity of the tale.

 

Used to be funny. Not really now.

 

Unfortunately, this is what this thread has come down to for me on the past few pages.

 

I have no idea what you’re arguing here.

Rolling Stone should have never published the story as is, period. Regardless of the actors, their genders and their races and cultural backgrounds. Period. Rolling Stone should’ve “demanded far more evidence” regardless of the race of the alleged perpetrators, and it’s pretty insulting to say most journalists are much more cavalier about accusing white people of serious crimes than they are about accusing black people.

However, if the “setting” of a gang rape was actually, you know, true and documented, you’re kidding yourself if you think there’d be any difference in the reaction had the frat bros been black instead of white. AL SHARPTON!!!! and his ilk would be welcome to protest and call RS racist and what not. But, again, truth and documentation and verification have a really funny way of refuting anything the critics have to say about your work.

Also, if RS had published a demonstrably and obviously false story like this about a black frat, and the reporter detailed his/her process similarly to how Erdely did, I’m not sure you could come to any other conclusion other than that it was racially motivated.

 

Lastly, YF, I'll say flat-out that the groundswell of people looking to discredit this story would be nowhere to be found if it involved a black fraternity. Why? Because too many white people are all too quick to believe without reservation that black people are criminals. Kind of like how too many men are all too quick to believe women are lying about being sexually assaulted.

 

The fact that they could publish this story -- as reported -- about a white fraternity, but likely wouldn't about a black fraternity is evidence of their bias.

They were willing to publish this article because it confirmed their biases, and because it coincided with their world view.

If the fraternity in question had been African-American, I believe they would have been much more suspicious of the accusations, because it would not confirm their biases. And, even if they could have verified it -- which they would have demanded -- they would have been uncomfortable publishing it, because it conflicts with their world view, and political agenda.

This was impact journalism. This was agenda journalism. And the agenda was not just to bring awareness to the rape culture that exists on college campuses. For this story to "feel right" it also needed the right villains. White villains. Elite villains. Villains steeped in 'Southern Culture".

African-American victims would have fueled racists. White racists would have loved this story if the villains were black, and there's no way Rolling Stone would serve this story up to white racists for them to make hay with.

And, if they had, and if it would have been evidence of racism, then tell me what the article, as it was published, made evident?

Does it not confirm their biases?

Why would we recognize and condemn racial bias, but not recognize that this was a biased hit job, with a political agenda behind it?

 

Actually it's evidence of your bias.

The hypothetical about the black fraternity comes solely from your head.

 

Yes! Exactly! And that's exactly why RS would have never published such a flimsy story with African-Americans as the villains. They would never give racist bubbas the ammunition to confirm their racists feelings.

Though, I do believe people like the reporters at the WaPo, and other professionals would have been just as skeptical. The problem is, once it came out, the racists would never be convinced the story wasn't true. Even if it could be shown that their were "major discrepancies" in the story, they would always believe that "something happened". Which is exactly what many liberal feminists said about this story, and what many people who are biased about fraternities still believe about this story.