Rolling Stone Cites Doubts on Its Story of Gang Rape

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

Rolling Stone magazine acknowledged on Friday that it now had reservations about an article it published that made startling and detailed allegations of a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. The magazine said that its trust in the sole source for the story, Jackie, the woman making the allegations, was misplaced.

The magazine’s managing editor, Will Dana, wrote that there appear to be “discrepancies” in the description of the brutal gang rape in the article, “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

In the face of new information, Mr. Dana wrote, “we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.”

Mr. Dana said that the magazine did not seek to contact any of the individuals whom Jackie, who was identified only by her first name, accused of a 2012 rape.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/rolling-stone-re-examines-its-account-of-virginia-rape.html

[MADem]

1. WTF? There are BASICS in journalism, and they dropped the ball on the biggie?

Mr. Dana said that the magazine did not seek to contact any of the individuals whom Jackie, who was identified only by her first name, accused of a 2012 rape.

That magazine is doing a lot of Very Sucky Things lately. They are so desperate to drive newsstand purchases and subscriptions that they'll say anything, do anything, pander mightily.

They might try going back to basics, and hire editors who will enforce basic Who/What/When/Where/Why Fact Check-Fact Check-Fact Check practices.

[blackspade]

9. That is a blanket statement about all of their reporters.

What other pieces have been questioned lately?

[MADem]

16. How about their pisspoor judgment in putting "Murdering McDreamy" on the front cover

which is usually the real estate of iconic musicians and pop stars?

They fuck up on big things and small....and they just say "Oh well" and keep on trucking.

Sample (and this asshole is not my favorite person, but still...): http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-02-17/rolling-stone-admits-misquoting-bieber-on-abortion/

Due to an editing error, this online news item originally included an incomplete quote from our Justin Bieber cover story. The full quote, which appears in full in our March 3 issue, reads: 'Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that.'

And how could we forget THIS beauty of a bullshit story?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rolling-stone-retracts-autism-article-but-lots-of-junk-journalism-remains/

You want to go back many years? They accused a Polish scientist of causing AIDS--real cute--and were sued, rightfully so: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/debunked-polio-vaccine-and-hiv-link

They act like they're all about the "gonzo" when they photoshop their covers--sometimes quite poorly, too. They aren't "keeping it real"--they're selling magazines. http://www.businessinsider.com/katy-perry-isnt-hot-enough-for-rolling-stone-this-animation-shows-how-they-touched-up-her-cover-photo-2011-2

RS is all about the Benjamins these days--their hipster target audience is past sixty on their way to seventy, and they're trying to suck in a younger demographic with these bullshit "big seller" stories. Si farm everyone remembers the big splash that these exposes make--nobody remembers the "ooops we did it again" retractions.

They keep fucking up, though, they'll lose customers, if anyone starts noticing--and maybe with this big screw up, someone actually will start to notice. Like I said, when the Enquirer compares favorably in terms of accuracy, they've got issues, especially at that newsstand price.

If the cost of edgy "new journalism" means that accuracy is optional, well, fuck it--might as well read the News of The World type-tabloids, because it's all bullshit.

[7962]

21. Thanks you.

[blackspade]

31. Thanks for the info.

But, I'm not willing to shitcan all of their other writers for the fuckups of a few.
Every news organization blows it occasionally (That's why I found your CBS link so ironic), so maybe we should hold the writers (and their editors) accountable rather than everyone who contributes to the magazine.

[MADem]

35. That's what I have been saying, but come on--the shit rolls down hill.

Good magazines have editors, as do good newspapers. The editors either are dumbasses, or they aren't doing their jobs, or worse, they've all been fired and there's no filter between an overzealous Stephen Glass-type Carl Bernstein wannabee and a publisher looking for a big payday.

And after awhile, you have got to play the "guilt by association" card. If a publication (let's say, just for discussion, The Washington Times) keeps publishing fact-free crap that lionizes Republicans and Reverend Moon, and lies, repeatedly, about Democrats, after a while you stop trusting them as a source....and you wonder about anyone who associates themselves with such an outfit. When UPI went totally batshit crazy, Helen Thomas did the right thing and QUIT because she didn't want her name associated with their halfassed nutter perspective.

RS is headed down a bad path, and they've been getting away with it because they're BIG FINGER QUOTES ***edgy*** BIG FINGER QUOTES, and they put Katy Perry with pneumatic bosoms and Britney Spears' behind on the front of their magazine.

But that kind of stuff has kind of lost its charm--people don't buy that bullshit anymore, at least not so readily. I think many people seek a return to QUALITY in lieu of candy and quantity.

As for CBS, you're quite right--they've gone over to the Dark Side, as it were. They're tools just like ABC and NBC. You need a riveted and jaundiced eye to pick through their bullshit to find the nuggets.

[Recursion]

49. Rolling Stone has a history with anti-vaccination pieces too

So, there's that.

[Codeine]

51. Didn't they give the "HIV does not cause AIDS" people a soapbox

back in the early 90s as well? Or maybe that was SPIN.

[alp227]

54. Yeah Spin mag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celia_Farber

[Recursion]

58. That was Spin, though Duesberg hadn't gone as far off the deep end as he has since

In fairness, at that point he was still a respected virologist with some theories of toxicity that the science hadn't ruled out yet.

[PasadenaTrudy]

2. twitter is going nuts right now with this

Follow Jessica Valenti on this.

[Rhinodawg]

17. Link?

[MADem]

23. Open your twitter account and type ROLLING STONE in the search bar....

[alp227]

55. Here's JV's twitter

http://twitter.com/jessicavalenti

[Snow Leopard]

37. Why

She is a nitwit.

[alp227]

56. Why? She's spot on in her work like in her book "The Purity Myth" nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Uh-oh.

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Rolling Stone whiffs in reporting on alleged rape

Amid turmoil and safety concerns, some thinking twice about applying to U-Va.

Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt

By T. Rees Shapiro December 5 at 2:25 PM @TReesShapiro

Several key aspects of the account of a gang rape offered by a University of Virginia student in Rolling Stone magazine have been cast into doubt, including the date of the alleged attack and details about the alleged attacker, according to interviews and a statement from the magazine backing away from the article.

The U-Va. fraternity chapter where the alleged attack took place in September 2012 released a statement Friday afternoon denying that such an assault took place in its house. Phi Kappa Psi said that it has been working with police to determine whether the account of a brutal rape at a party there was true. The fraternity members say that several important elements of the allegations were false.

A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are sex assault awareness advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to Jackie but also have come to doubt her account. They said details have changed over time, and they have not been able to verify key points of the story in recent days. A name of an alleged attacker that Jackie provided to them for the first time this week, for example, turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he did work at the Aquatic Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie’s name. He said, however, that he had never met Jackie in person and had never taken her on a date. He also said that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.....

[e-mail]

At 2:46 p.m., there were already 743 comments, and the number is climbing quickly.

Phi Kappa Psi releases statement noting factual inaccuracies in Rolling Stone account

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

6. If you are going to talk about going up a side staircase

you better make sure there's actually such a staircase in that frat house!

There isn't.

[Recursion]

7. Or that there was a party there on the night she claimed. Or that they do rush in the fall semester.

[LynneSin]

4. If that story was based on a bad source, UVA should sue the pants off of Rolling Stone

UVA took a big it on their Reputation because of that article. Hell I was someone who defending RS because of that article. And now we find that 'Jackie' might not be real.

That's just downright bad, really bad.

[BlueEye]

5. Yep.

The most intelligent comments that I have read amount to, "This will set back the cause of awareness by a decade."

While I hope that is not true, Rolling Stone basically just caused Duke Lacrosse 2.0. Years of litigation draw attention away from the fact that sexual assault on college campuses is areal problem.

At the same time, UVa is an outstanding institution and I support their right to protect their name from such defamation.

[Jesus Malverde]

27. She's real, just a mentally ill student

Who apparently needs attention, and will make up stories to get it.

[sweetapogee]

40. Do you know this person?

Are you a healthcare professional and did you examine and/or treat the patient? Are you aware of HIPPA laws regarding public disclosure of patient medical information?

[Jesus Malverde]

41. Read the RS article, she suffers from depression and takes psych meds.

The meds are named in the article.

You should ask the rolling stone reporter who made the disclosure about HIPPA and all that.

"Though a psychiatrist had put Jackie on Wellbutrin, she had remained depressed,"

- Guess we have to take it all with a grain of salt since she could have made up the that up as well.



http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119?page=4

[djg21]

60. HIPPA is a genus of crustaceans

I think you mean the Health information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

[Logical]

44. And sue Jackie! nt

[24601]

57. Resignations at RS aren't the only ones in order - the UVA President, shutting down Fraternities

on no credible evidence should be seeking other employment.

What has UVA said about these latest revelations? I haven't found any comment.

[dariomax]

67. at 2pm today police has a press coference on their investigation

http://news.yahoo.com/police-press-conference-on-uva-rolling-stone-rape-investigation-covered-live-by-katie-couric-205013344.html

[blackspade]

8. Oh, crap.

It was a riveting and disturbing article.
Unfortunately this will be used to undermine the fact that rapes and sexual assaults are common and covered up not only on campuses, but in the workplace as well.

[Rhinodawg]

10. So it may just be a lie ??

way to go to set back women 20 years.

[hrmjustin]

11. I am not going to make a judgement on the rape allegation but the journalist should be

taken to task for these mistakes. I don't know who the author of the story is but whoever it is has a lot to answer for.

[Recursion]

12. Sabrina Erdely

http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/sabrina-rubin-erdely

[hrmjustin]

13. Thanks for the link.

She has a lot to answer for.

[Shrek]

15. The fraternity might hesitate to sue

Unless they're really, really sure that nothing unsavory ever happened on their premises.

Trial discovery might be unpredictably damaging.

[BlueEye]

19. If the falsity of the article is really as bad as some sources are saying...

then I don't see how the article doesn't meet the definition of the Tort of Defamation:

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html

Even if some sort of unsavory behavior occurred in the fraternity in the past, the deck is literally stacked against Rolling Stone and the journalist. Numerous factual claims (such as the stairwell on the side of the house) appear to be totally false. I'd be shocked if they even went to trial.

[Jesus Malverde]

42. This could be the biggest screw up in the history of mainstream journalism.

That the author left out the word "alleged" is going to be devastating. What a dumbass writer and the editors who oversaw her work. She wanted this to be an explosive article. It blew up in her face.

I think the school and frat have suffered real damages both economic and to their reputation. Damages which will be easy to document.

[FBaggins]

25. Discovery isn't quite that wide open

If you falsely accuse someone of rape and they sue you for it, the judge isn't going to let you subpoena cable TV records on the theory that you might have stolen cable three years ago. There has to be some connection to the issues of the lawsuit - "Well... yeah... we did make up this story... but you guys really are slimy in lots of other ways so you deserved it!" isn't a legal defense.

If the reporter (sic) had spoken to other victims that were unwilling to come forward and relied on that as corroborating evidence that this kind of thing goes on at the frat house... then she could use discovery to demonstrate that the current story was reasonable to run... otherwise I don't see how they need to fear discovery (which would likely be held confidential unless it bore directly on the charge).

[Igel]

20. Should be.

But when you want to believe it's easy to do so.

Advocacy science is bad. Advocacy journalism is also bad. If your goal is to advance a cause and save some part of society, then the goal can easily outweigh the need for facts. It's one reason some disciplines have so many non-reproducible, horribly flawed research papers sail through peer review to applause and cheers. The results are obviously true, the conclusions are rock solid, all the data and analysis are just there for dressing. (And it takes a truly brave, big-minded PI to back off the findings when the obviously true results are undermined by an artful evisceration of the analysis which, when corrected, produces null or even contrary results.)

If the young woman's friends are sexual assault advocates (there has to be a better phrase for that but it escapes me) then claiming sexual assault is a good tool for attention seeking; it's also an easy path to have something real that was built into something that was much, much more. Memory's very fallible, esp. if alcohol is involved somewhere along the way. Or something really heinous did happen. But it's hard to know the truth, since the conclusion is the same one you'd plausibly get in all three cases.

[Psephos]

33. an incisive post n/t

[SylviaD]

61. Best post on subject. n/t

[KinMd]

18. This harms all those women who are victims of rape

[7962]

22. Every time it happens. Its terrible & someone should be charged.

And if "Jackie" was made up, then that writer needs to be charged and run out of her job.
This type of shit hurts women when an assault DOES happen. Its already hard enough for them as it is.

[KinMd]

24. I agree totally, as an middle aged male I can't imagine how awful that has to be.

but before one accuses someone of rape, make sure they committed a rape

[Jesus Malverde]

26. Reading the article

One can see this is less a work of a journalist and more the work of an activist spinning a narrative.

The memes are constant and predictable.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

Sabrina Rubin Erdely a name to remember

Erdely spent weeks corroborating details of Jackie’s account, including such minutiae as her work as a lifeguard. She concluded: “I find her completely credible. It’s impossible to know for certain what happened in that room, because I wasn’t in it. But I certainly believe that she described an experience that was in­cred­ibly traumatic to her.”

Some elements of the story, however, are apparently too delicate for Erdely to talk about now. She won’t say, for example, whether she knows the names of Jackie’s alleged attackers or whether in her reporting she approached “Drew,” the alleged ringleader, for comment. She is bound to silence about those details, she said, by an agreement with Jackie, who “is very fearful of these men, in particular Drew. . . . She now considers herself an empty shell. So when it comes down to identifying them, she has a very hard time with that.”

The story does take one journalistic shortcut. The alleged assault, described in graphic detail, is presented largely without traditional qualifiers, such as “according to Jackie” or “allegedly.” The absence of such attribution or qualification leaves the impression that the events in question are undisputed facts, rather than accusations. Erdely said, however, that her writing style makes it clear that the events are being told from Jackie’s point of view.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sabrina-rubin-erdely-woman-behind-rolling-stones-explosive-u-va-alleged-rape-story/2014/11/28/89f322c2-7731-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

After days of questions, Rolling Stone has finally answered the two big questions asked of its blockbuster story about sexual assault at the University of Virginia: Did reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely try to contact the students who were accused of gang-raping Jackie, a student whose shocking story anchored the piece? And if not, why not?

In a statement that clarifies the conflicting accounts Erdely and her editor have given to numerous publications, editor Will Dana explains that:

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

Dana also explains that, “In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/12/05/rolling-stone-needs-to-come-clean-about-its-campus-rape-story/

Sad day for Journalism and real victims of sexual assault.

[Blue_Tires]

29. Believe it or not, "activists spinning narratives" is commonplace in

what passes for today's journalism...It just happens so often and the perpetrators are so rarely called out because the readership already agrees and so desperately wants to believe the narrative...

[AngryAmish]

39. It is a good day for joutnalism, today is.

The truth was discovered. A good day for justice will be when rolling stone is dissolved to pay the judgment.

[Man from Pickens]

28. This is bad

as in "getting sued out of existence" bad

The story makes extremely severe, reputation-destroying charges - if they were made without due diligence, this could spell the end of Rolling Stone. Both the frat and the university and anyone who believes that they are individuals described are probably all talking to lawyers right now.

[harris8]

30. I don't get it. Why should they have contacted the accused rapists?

I don't understand this statement: "...the magazine did not seek to contact any of the individuals whom Jackie, who was identified only by her first name, accused of a 2012 rape."

Isn't it obvious what result they would get if they contacted the accused rapists?

"Wasn't me."

"I didn't go to that party."

"Never seen her in my life."

etc. ad nauseum


How would it have made any difference to the veracity of the article to contact a bunch of guys who are obviously not going to admit to any wrongdoing?

[GGJohn]

32. Because it's responsible reporting, which the "reporter" didn't do,

which RS didn't fact check, that's piss poor reporting.
Asking them gets them on record, that's Journalism 101.

[Psephos]

34. In other words, when you already have the "truth," who needs facts? n/t

[MADem]

36. What dumb ass reporter would open with "Say, did you rape a young lady named Jackie?"

Of course not--they'd open with "I am doing an article that deals with frat life--tell me about some of your most wild parties; I won't name you if you want to stay anonymous..." and tease the story out of him in that fashion. "A lot of sex happen at these parties? Ever find yourself in a group situation?" etc., etc.

A good reporter never shuts down the discussion by coming at a person in an accusatory way. And by approaching obliquely, were the story true, it would be entirely possible that at least one or more would corroborate at least the fact that sex occurred, even if they don't acknowledge a lack of consent.

[LisaL]

64. At the very least, reporter could have found out if he actually was a member of the frat accused.

Which he wasn't.
So that would have stopped publication of the story right then and there.

[Snow Leopard]

38. Well if they are going to just believe her

Then why not just believe them too? I know, men are evil liars.

But seriously they may have been able to provide evidence the claim was bullshit., that is why.

[Kurska]

43. Well for one you can confirm the person actually exists

Or that basic facts provided about them were true.

Neither of that was done and it appears it is possible they might have a problem on both fronts. You always try to contact the accused in the story like this. You're right, often they won't say anything, but that doesn't mean you can just skip that step. In this case it would have prevented a really damaging story from even surfacing.

[Recursion]

45. Well, in this case, one of them might have had an alibi that night

Which might have led the reporter to, oh, I don't know, verify that there had actually been a party at the house that night, or that the frat actually does rush in the fall (the frat claims neither is true).

Even beyond the accused attackers, the article has a female "friend" saying, in front of a blood-spattered and beaten Jackie, "we can't take her to the hospital, her reputation will be ruined."

You don't think her friend deserves a chance to either clarify or stand behind that quote before it appears in print? (Remember, Erdely has claimed that people going to UVA at the time know or can easily figure out who the people involved are, and the victim's* first name is actually "Jackie" -- WaPo has confirmed that.)

* (She seems clearly to be the victim of something here, even if it's just a reporter who published her story over her objections.)

[moriah]

47. The only part of the information the frat said that makes me question it is employment records.

If they had planned a gang-rape, it certainly wouldn't have been at an official function. Every weekend is a party, and all the better for not having alumni members there who might have had more sense.

As for "rush", the claims of hearing "you have to do it" sound far more like extremely twisted peer pressure than that it was somehow a hazing ritual, and if it was one it certainly wouldn't have been fulfilled by object rape.

----

That being said, there is fact-checking that any responsible news outlet should perform that could have involved not contacting the alleged rapists. If it's true that they did not interview any of the three who allegedly picked her up and argued about taking her to the hospital, that leaves a huge hole. While my friends who supported me when I was raped would want my permission before talking to some reporter about how I acted at that time or what I said, I'd give it. Checking the employment records to see if he did work at the university pool. Etc.

And I'm still waiting for something from UVA saying that, not just the frat's word, about the employment records.

[Recursion]

48. Not to mention what is to me the real story here, that Jackie took this charge to the admin

and got nowhere.

But, see, here's the problem with what RS did: now the administration can plausibly say "well we did some checking (unlike you) and it didn't really check out so we couldn't go forward to a hearing with it."

A better-sourced RS story wouldn't have given UVa that "out".

[moriah]

50. I saw an article linked about the case after I posted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html?hpid=z1

WaPo did some intense reporting here, and it answered a lot of my questions about this particular case.

I am of the belief that yes, something happened to her that night. I don't know exactly what, but the name she gave of the person who she alleged was her escort that evening *did* work at the pool, though was not a brother at that fraternity (he was in a different one). He is denying it, but sadly her story has changed over time, and the witnesses who picked her up near fraternity row said that they offered to take her to the hospital and she declined, wanting to go back to her dorm (perfectly natural, though bad for preserving evidence). She may be blaming herself for not reporting it at the time. Or it's true and he's feeling guilty for not encouraging her to report it. (When I was raped one of the first people I told said not to report it. He felt very bad afterwards when he saw what it was doing to me, but he was thinking it'd be more traumatic for me to deal with an investigation and trial.)

Either way, yes, she was picked up near Frat Row and her roommate said she had been acting very disturbed. Her identification of the frat house came from someone driving her by, but otherwise she claims not to have known one frat from the other, and that he didn't say what fraternity he was in.

There's a curious trend among people who are assaulted. We tend to believe that what happened to us wasn't "bad enough" to be rape. I still want to refer to what happened to me as simply an assault, or if pressed sexual assault, not rape. In my case, I was passed out on the couch, woke up in his bed with my clothes only partially off to being penetrated from behind, when I was on my side. Apparently it was hard to get jeans off and he was trying not to wake me, but sexual penetration did. Since he wasn't on top of me, I was able to get away very quickly, and so it didn't go on a long time. (I could describe the feeling of coming out of an alcohol-induced state to that happening, but it kind of starts me back into a flashback.) Yet the part of the assault I remember didn't last more than 10 seconds at most. As soon as I had any awareness of what was happening I did my damndest and succeeded at getting out of that bed, out of the room, and my clothes back into place. I count myself lucky to have been wearing jeans, or I likely would have woken up with him on top of me and not been able to get away, and that would have been far worse.

Yet it's still horribly traumatic to me. I developed PTSD from 10 seconds of something that I can imagine being much worse. I feel horribly weak for "only 10 seconds" to have broken me.

Maybe she thought she was over-reacting to what did happen to her, and embellished because she thought her friends wouldn't believe she was having such a rough time from only what actually did happen. I don't know. But her story seems to have grown over time, though there is evidence that a traumatic event occurred.

[azmom]

52. I'm sorry that happened to you.

I also believe something did happen to her. I have a daughter in college and all of this is very distressing.

[LisaL]

63. The fraternity named by RS article appears to have been falsely accused.

The lifeguard student named by Jackie was not a member of it.
Even if something did happen to Jackie, she appears to be confused on the details of what exactly that something was and where it took place.
But the fraternity named by RS appears to be completely unrelated to that something.
Lifeguard-student was not a member of the fraternity. Fraternity doesn't have initiations in the fall. Fraternity's house does not have a staircase described by Jackie. Fraternity didn't have a party on the date in question.

[moriah]

66. As I have realized if you read further into posts I posted.

Including the link to the Washington Post article giving the most information I've seen yet.

[moriah]

46. If you're going to name them, you sure as hell better contact them, or risk libel charges.

If they'd ran the story without naming the fraternity, it might have been more responsible to run it without contacting them.

Now, if a newspaper ever wanted me to share the story of my non-prosecuted rape, they would have a police report. Showing that the officers themselves believed me, but knew it was impossible to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt with just my word and focused on trying to build a better case. When I reported it, even though I'm resentful they never even tried a grand jury since there were emails and texts that showed him constantly trying to contact me and me asserting rape with him not disagreeing and apologizing, I first said I understood if all they could do was just keep it on their own minds that he was accused before if he ever raped another woman in that town -- that she'd be listened to.

And so they'd be able to contact him, or not, but would have at least a public record to use as a basis without "fact-checking" or giving him a chance to say his side, as predictable as it would be. And as an adult and in a different town now from the man, who has since been arrested twice for domestic battery (also public records they could have used), I'm not in a position to say I wouldn't do the story if they didn't contact him.

However... they could have done cross-checking of the names she actually gave to them, even if they didn't run them, to find out if one of them had worked at the university pool. If that is not true, then it casts doubt on the whole story, and that's very sad for everyone. I don't really care about the frat's records of events, every weekend is a party, and it makes far more sense for it to have been unofficial to have been been a cover for a gang rape.

And I'd not take the frat's direct word for it, but want to hear it from the university themselves, about the employment records.

[LisaL]

65. Because the guy Jackie named was not even a member of the frat.

Even most basic detail was not verified by the reporter.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

53. Libel law and the Rolling Stone / UVA alleged gang rape story

Libel law and the Rolling Stone / UVA alleged gang rape story

The Volokh Conspiracy
By Eugene Volokh December 6 at 6:10 AM @volokhc

Several readers have asked: If the Rolling Stone article describing the alleged gang rape of a UVA student at a Phi Kappa Psi fraternity party is materially false, could the Rolling Stone be successfully sued for libel? This is a good illustration of some important libel law principles, so I thought I’d write about it.

Let me stress up front, though, that my strength is in libel law, not in investigative reporting. I haven’t done any independent investigation of the facts; instead, I’ll describe how the law would likely apply to the facts as they have been reported, including in this Post article by T. Rees Shapiro. Naturally, if new facts come to light, that would affect the legal analysis, and of course if the charges in the Rolling Stone story prove to be accurate, then there would be no libel claim. Let me also stress that the most interesting and important issues raised by this controversy, whether about rape, about the proper procedures for considering allegations of rape, or about journalistic ethics, are not issues related to libel law — it’s just that libel law is the area that I am most equipped to discuss here.

[bklyncowgirl]

59. If this woman lied about this she has done great damage to other victims.

Women who report rape are systematically demeaned and threatened and accused of seeking vengeance or attention or being, to put it nicely, nuts. Whatever this woman's story the fact that Rolling Stone's reporter did not fact check her story will hurt other women who actually were assaulted.

[Doctor_J]

62. Hoo boy

this is going to suck