UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

[MisterCreosote]

I know that the concern frequently expressed by the victim advocacy movement is that, because of this story, because of these ... these ... missed details, people won't trust the victim advocacy movement any more.

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

 

[PW2]

I know that the concern frequently expressed by the victim advocacy movement is that, because of this story, because of these ... these ... missed details, people won't trust the victim advocacy movement any more.

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

Coco McPherson, Rolling Stone's fact-checker, Tweeted the following when the story came out:

So proud of @SabrinaRErdely and @RollingStone and the incredibly brave young women of UVA for coming forward http://rol.st/11Cs0z8

And re-Tweeted this when the story began to unravel:

…I'm appalled that people are turning a story about a public institution sitting on an explosive allegation of gang rape on campus into a conversation about ethics in gang-rape journalism.

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2014/12/09/resignations-at-rolling-stone/

His next blog post was just as good:

Mostly from the right, some observers believe that the term "discrepancies" suggests that nothing happened to Jackie; that she made the whole thing up. Some websites have alleged—without a hint of proof, as far as I can tell— that Jackie has a history of making up rape allegations. These are the same folks who are livid with Rolling Stone for not holding Jackie to the highest evidentiary standards. I certainly understand the criticism, but some consistency would seem to be in order.

On the other side, the victims' advocacy wing, there are people who keep writing about "discrepancies" as if they are by definition trivial.

The context is usually something like this: "Just because there are inconsistencies in Jackie's story does not mean that it isn't mostly true. So what if she got the date wrong, or the name of the fraternity? Something happened to her."

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/

 

[MisterCreosote]

I know that the concern frequently expressed by the victim advocacy movement is that, because of this story, because of these ... these ... missed details, people won't trust the victim advocacy movement any more.

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.

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."

 

[PW2]

I know that the concern frequently expressed by the victim advocacy movement is that, because of this story, because of these ... these ... missed details, people won't trust the victim advocacy movement any more.

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.

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."

Coco McPherson, Rolling Stone's fact-checker, Tweeted the following when the story came out:

So proud of @SabrinaRErdely and @RollingStone and the incredibly brave young women of UVA for coming forward http://rol.st/11Cs0z8

And re-Tweeted this when the story began to unravel:

…I'm appalled that people are turning a story about a public institution sitting on an explosive allegation of gang rape on campus into a conversation about ethics in gang-rape journalism.

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2014/12/09/resignations-at-rolling-stone/

His next blog post was just as good:

Mostly from the right, some observers believe that the term "discrepancies" suggests that nothing happened to Jackie; that she made the whole thing up. Some websites have alleged—without a hint of proof, as far as I can tell— that Jackie has a history of making up rape allegations. These are the same folks who are livid with Rolling Stone for not holding Jackie to the highest evidentiary standards. I certainly understand the criticism, but some consistency would seem to be in order.

On the other side, the victims' advocacy wing, there are people who keep writing about "discrepancies" as if they are by definition trivial.

The context is usually something like this: "Just because there are inconsistencies in Jackie's story does not mean that it isn't mostly true. So what if she got the date wrong, or the name of the fraternity? Something happened to her."

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/

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.

 

[PW2]

I know that the concern frequently expressed by the victim advocacy movement is that, because of this story, because of these ... these ... missed details, people won't trust the victim advocacy movement any more.

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.

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."

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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."

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

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.

 

[The Big Ragu]

"Agenda journalism"?

People write magazine stories about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Some of those stories are reported well, fact checked well, edited well, and presents a finished story that holds up to factual scrutiny and is interesting to people.

You are on an example of a story that wasn't reported well, doesn't seem to have been fact checked well, from a magazine that printed something that appears to have been full of holes.

If "agenda journalism" means "crappy journalism," sure. Congrats. You figured out that you shouldn't automatically accept anything someone tells you as factual.

But everyone has an "agenda," of some sort. It doesn't mean that the whole world isn't believable. It means that SOME people aren't believable. Anyone who has ever left their home knows that is true about humans, in general.

 

[Songbird]

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

 

[doctorquant]

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.

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.

 

[MisterCreosote]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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