On December 18 2014, I posted about an article in Rolling Stone magazine called "A Rape On Campus:A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely [see photo] about a student at UVA who had been brutally gang-raped by a group of frat boys when she was a freshman in 2012 and how the "facts" of the article had all been found very quickly to be a complete fabrication.
When Truth Isn't Good Enough, Just Lie!
[the link to the original RS article is no longer available]
Much has happened since December. Firstly, at the end of January 2015, the local Virginia police department made public the results of their exhaustive investigation and concluded that they could find no evidence of a rape at the UVA Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house had taken place. They softened the blow, by stating that something may have happened to "Jackie", the subject of the original article, but it didn't happen at the frat house or by the frat boys. Oh, yeah, she refused to participate in the investigation.
At the same time, Rolling Stone asked that the august and learned fellows at the Columbia School of Journalism conduct a thorough investigation to find out exactly what went so terrible wrong. Their conclusion which was published Sunday evening (to minimize the damage), boils down to Sabrina Erdley and the editors of Rolling Stone pretty much broke every rule of journalism...read the report - A Rape On Campus: What Went Wrong?.
The result of this exhaustive self-analysis? Writer, editors, fact-checkers, and publishers were all to blame and they have promised to do better from now on. No one loses their job or livelihoods and certainly Sabrina Erdley will be hired to write other articles for Rolling Stone. Hey, s**t happens. Let's all move on...except for the giant, very expensive lawsuit that those falsely accused frat boys are filing even as we speak.
Interestingly, Sabrina Erdley and all the feminists at Salon and Jezebel who so rabidly defended the story and vociferously called out anyone who dared to question the facts of the story are now ironically claiming to be the victims. And Erdley refuses to take responsibly for her own journalistic malpractice as she claims she was just duped by "a really expert fabulist storyteller” - Jann Wenner's pathetic description.
And the media wonders why we don't trust that what they report is the truth...
If you are interested in more, here is an article from thedailybeast.com posted by John McWhorter that explains how this is a "story about media addicted to seeking sensationalism over accuracy...[and] the idea that the pursuit of justice can be separated from facts; that metaphorical truth can be more important than literal truth. The Truth About UVA and Ferguson Isn't Good Enough for P.C. Crowd
When Truth Isn't Good Enough, Just Lie!
[the link to the original RS article is no longer available]
Much has happened since December. Firstly, at the end of January 2015, the local Virginia police department made public the results of their exhaustive investigation and concluded that they could find no evidence of a rape at the UVA Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house had taken place. They softened the blow, by stating that something may have happened to "Jackie", the subject of the original article, but it didn't happen at the frat house or by the frat boys. Oh, yeah, she refused to participate in the investigation.
At the same time, Rolling Stone asked that the august and learned fellows at the Columbia School of Journalism conduct a thorough investigation to find out exactly what went so terrible wrong. Their conclusion which was published Sunday evening (to minimize the damage), boils down to Sabrina Erdley and the editors of Rolling Stone pretty much broke every rule of journalism...read the report - A Rape On Campus: What Went Wrong?.
The result of this exhaustive self-analysis? Writer, editors, fact-checkers, and publishers were all to blame and they have promised to do better from now on. No one loses their job or livelihoods and certainly Sabrina Erdley will be hired to write other articles for Rolling Stone. Hey, s**t happens. Let's all move on...except for the giant, very expensive lawsuit that those falsely accused frat boys are filing even as we speak.
Interestingly, Sabrina Erdley and all the feminists at Salon and Jezebel who so rabidly defended the story and vociferously called out anyone who dared to question the facts of the story are now ironically claiming to be the victims. And Erdley refuses to take responsibly for her own journalistic malpractice as she claims she was just duped by "a really expert fabulist storyteller” - Jann Wenner's pathetic description.
And the media wonders why we don't trust that what they report is the truth...
If you are interested in more, here is an article from thedailybeast.com posted by John McWhorter that explains how this is a "story about media addicted to seeking sensationalism over accuracy...[and] the idea that the pursuit of justice can be separated from facts; that metaphorical truth can be more important than literal truth. The Truth About UVA and Ferguson Isn't Good Enough for P.C. Crowd
20 comments:
First, contra Jessica Valenti of The Guardian*, I think it is safe to say that Jackie deserves some of the blame. Even if she was raped (somewhere) she has proven herself to be a deeply disturbed fabulist with a history of weaving tales. Aside from her attendance at UVA as a student, I do not think there was a single story she gave Erdely that was not completely fabricated, wildly exaggerated, or grossly distorted. No sane person would consider her a credible source for anything.
Second, however, if it is to be believed this woman sent up many red flags, some of surrounded by neon red lights, that she was being less than truthful. Whenever Erdely began to suspect a falsehood or simply pushed for clarification about something that was muddy, Jackie would evade and cease communications, sometimes for days or even weeks. Erdely should have dropped this and moved on.
*Really, read that headline at the link. That is what the Feminist Left is going for now. It was not JAckie's responsibility to get the facts straight about her rape (or her boyfriend, or the place it happened, or the conversation she had with her friends, or the alleged bottle thrown at her, etc.) it was The Rolling Stones job. Huh?
Also, we all know the lawsuit against Stone will probably end in a quiet settlement.
"Their conclusion which was published Sunday evening (to minimize the damage)"
And it wasn't just any Sunday, either. It was Easter Sunday. Probably the biggest Sunday of the entire year.
In the future, if I have to quote an article from Rolling Stone, I'm going to end with a caveat in italics: "This article was in Rolling Stone Magazine so I have no idea if it's true or not..."
There's a reason why Valenti's articles always close for comments shortly after they post.
It would be nice to seethese young fraternity men end up severely damaging Rolling Stone magazine or owning them.
Jackie is a liar, plain n' simple, who's lies, supported by a zealous mob did a lot of damage to these young men.
Sadly, she probably won't pay for her diabolical lies, and neither will all those drooling idiots who supported her.
One would think that if there is truly a rape epidemic in colleges that reporters would have no problem finding lots of examples.
In reality, this is all a leftist fantasy, and the blind pursuit of this rape "epidemic" fantasy has hurt a lot of innocent young men.
Hopefully, there will be more lawsuits to follow.
Kit - No doubt "Jackie" does bear some of the blame for fabricated a fantastic story that was exactly what Erdley was looking for. BUT Sabrina Erdley should bear most of the blame - she refused to use her critical journalistic skills because she WANTED so badly to prove her ultimate hypothesis - that all white frat boys are evil and poor women are just helpless victims to their evil plot to dominate them. Well, that's my female take on the whole issue with Erdley.
I followed this issue from the first posting in November on a Twitter battle royal. Every feminazi came out in support of Erdley and "Jackie" even when the facts were found to be resoundingly false. They visciously attacked chastise all who questioned any portion of the story as "deniers" of some evil war on women. And I won't even repeat what they called women who questioned. Erdley even went so far by saying that her instincts were so acutely accurate that she KNEW that "Jackie" was telling the truth.
Now she claims that even when now she claims bells, buzzers, whistles, and cannons went off in her head, she was duped. The entire staff at RS WANTED this story to be true and they didn't care about the truth. Heck that's what they all said at the time...the story is valid because it COULD be true because white frat boys are by their very nature evil rapists preying on young innocent girls.
Kit - Oooh, Valenti is going to be in trouuuuubbbblllee. Somehow I think she can take the pressure though.
And of course they chose Easter Sunday/Passover to drop their little bomblet so no one would notice...maybe. They didn't count on so many secular humanists who do not observe or maybe they were counting on the Final Four games as cover for them.
"This article was in Rolling Stone Magazine so I have no idea if it's true or not..."
Critch - I am not so sure that shouldn't be the disclaimer on ALL articles.
On a side note, I find it interesting that the lefties are always yammering on about the lies, distortions and frauds in "Faux News" reporting, but no one has actually successfully disputed their reporting to this level. Of course they do mistake the Bill O'Reilly-type opinion shows for "hard news" journalism too.
"Of course they do mistake the Bill O'Reilly-type opinion shows for "hard news" journalism too."
Bev, well they do consider the Daily Show to be among the best sources for news, so…
Good point, Kit. What will they do without Jon Stewart? It looks like the new guy is not quite the fair-minded, even-handed journalist that Jon is.
What I find really ironic is that Rolling Stone and Rape Enthusiast Erdley are the very people who normally smear and attack and savage people with whom they disagree. Now their friends and allies are doing it to them. Gotta love that!
I think they need to charge "Jackie" a felony A civil society simply can't let people make false allegations that potentially bring the weight of the system down on other people without punishing the liars harshly.
As an aside, I've seen comments from whiny feminist who still believe Jackie even though no rational person could at this point. If feminists want men to take women seriously, then they should purge their ranks of retards.
Those of us who smelled a fish and were criticizing for even daring to state that such a stench had entered our noses are now feeling a sense of vindication.
"....A civil society simply can't let people make false allegations..."
Wait, what?? Has someone told this to the Obama Administration and most of the federal government yet?? Or Harry Reid?
Kit - I followed the whole thing on Twitter...it was like a piranha feeding frenzy when anyone would dare to disagree. If they had been face to face, they would have been foaming at the mouth!
There's not much more I can to Duke Rape Case 2: The Sequel.
However, Kit and Bev, the "Easter Fix" is nothing new.
Three years ago, after having been caught editing the now-infamous George Zimmerman 911 call on "The Today Show" in order to make Zimmerman appear racist, NBC quietly fired the low-level producers who prepped the audio (though not the "The Today Show" execs who greenlit the act). However, no one noticed when the grunts were let go. So, on Easter Sunday, when no one was looking, a few higher-ups were fired. Granted, no one but the insiders had even heard of these people. But they could at least claim that "top producers" were let go and defuse the subject.
The only real change came with the eventual removal of Anne Curry. But that more to do with opportunistic, misogynist host Matt Lauer (who, as the rumor mill has it, has never gotten along with a co-host who refuses to sleep with him), who hated Curry and wanted any excuse to get rid of her.
So, Rolling Stone is just following the script.
UVA Rape
Notre Dame’s Mantei T’eo (sp?)
Duke Lacrosse
“Hands up, don’t shoot”
Steubenville Football
Penn State/Jerry Sandusky
Pick a Michael Moore “documentary”
New Millennium Journalism: Go with your own narrative, no matter how many facts stack up against your story.
I knew Rolling Stone made the odd foray into hard news, but didn't know they had multiple people on staff writing such articles.
Hopefully the inevitable civil lawsuits will hit these clowns hard.
Richard Bradley does a good job ripping apart Rolling Stone and Erdely over their handling.
LINK
And RedState is looking into another story Erdely did for the Rolling Stone, also on rape; "The Rape of Petty Officer Blumer."
LINK
An excerpt:
"Erdely’s reporting of the Blumer story is eerily similar to her reporting of the UVA story. In each case, Erdely uses a central figure who has a similar tale to tell: she was a victim of a horrific rape, she reported the rape to authorities, and her concerns were ignored and/or used against her. The narrative in each case is used to advance the theory that the institution in question (college administrators in the UVA case, military command in the Blumer case) is indifferent to the problem of systemic sexual assault occurring right under their noses. In both cases, the stories read suspiciously as though Ms. Erdely arrived at her conclusion before writing her story, and simply set out to find the first person who would constitute a credible vehicle for the narrative she wanted to create, without regard to the factual accuracy of her story. Recall that during the initial investigation of the UVA story it was uncovered that Erdely had sent emails indicating that she was looking for a story that fit a particular fact pattern – it would be no surprise to discover that similar emails existed in this case."
Post a Comment