Rolling Stone magazine issues statement over article alleging college rape.

[Fox Mulder]

Sorry you have to click the link to read the article. If someone could fix that would be great!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/rolling-stone-re-examines-its-account-of-virginia-rape.html?_r=0

As a white male in today's pc world I feel that I have to be careful about what I say, so not to be labelled a racist, bigot, anti this or anti that, but I have a couple of comments/questions about this story.

Also, if anyone has other links that offer more insight into this please post them.

1 - A magazine as big rolling stone should have done more to fact check before printing this. These are serious allegations that could ruin a person's image, reputation, etc. This opens the university to unfair criticism and is the wrong way to bring light to a serious issue.

2 - Perception and public opinion seem to be taking the pursuit of justice to another level. It seems that anyone can say anything nowadays and if enough people believe you then it must be true. There are plenty of examples of this, from Ferguson to Bill Cosby. Rape is not something to be tolerated and those who commit these crimes should be locked up forever and sterilized. However, with one tweet from a disgruntled ex anyone could be labelled a rapist and within a couple of days their life is over. I know this first hand, one of my friends was accused of rape in high school and spent a day in jail before the woman admitted she made the whole thing up. He ended up dropping out of school because he couldn't deal with the perception by others that he was a rapist.

3 - Will women be more or less likely to report a rape after this?

Would having a magazine publish and then retract a story make someone afraid to come forward?

Lastly, what goes through somebody's mind when they make up or exaggerate a story like this?

Again, I don't know if she is telling a truth or not but I am trying to understand the mindset of someone who would do that.

Does she realize the harm she is doing to others?

Does she think the benefits outweigh the risks?

Does she understand that the more times you cry wolf, the less likely people are to believe not only you but others in the future?

I am curious to read what all of you have to say.

[GLASSJAW]

I've been following this story a fair bit. The New Republic has been publishing articles about it because of their (infamous) issues with the 'journalist' Stephen Glass

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120450/sabrina-rubin-erdelys-uva-gang-rape-reporting-raises-questions

When scholars of the Historical Jesus try to figure out whether certain stories or sayings reported in the Gospels are authentic—a complicated concept in this context, but never mind—they use a rule they call the “criterion of dissimilarity.” If Jesus is shown saying or doing something likely to have offended the theological sensibilities of the writer or the Church of the time, it stands a better chance of being true. (A similar rule is the “criterion of embarrassment.”)

Last week, writer Richard Bradley published an essay essentially applying the criteria of dissimilarity and embarrassment to the by-now world-famous Rolling Stone story about a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. Bradley, who as editor of George was duped by serial fabricator Stephen Glass, says the lesson he took away from that experience is that “one must be most critical, in the best sense of that word, about what one is already inclined to believe.” In other words, if a story plays to rather than challenges your biases, you should subject it to tougher scrutiny. It has become a truism that campus rape has reached epidemic levels. The issue is given unflagging attention in the news, by the White House, and even by Congress. Because the story so soundly affirms the prevailing assumptions of our time, writes Bradley, he’s inclined to doubt it.

Should he? This morning Reason's Robby Soave went further, asking whether the entire story is a “gigantic hoax,” like the infamous Duke case. Bradley and Soave home in on some clear deviations from journalistic norms evident in the Rolling Stone article. First, the saga of the extraordinarily violent gang rape, described in excruciating detail in the first ten paragraphs of the piece, relies wholly on the testimony of one woman, identified only as Jackie in the piece. (It is her real first name.) Second, the reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, allowed herself to be bound by a vow she made to Jackie not to contact the alleged rapists, especially the pseudonymous Drew, said to have lured her into the room where seven men raped her. Erdely may not even have tried to identify them. According to a Washington Post profile of Erdely published this weekend, “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.’” During an interview on Slate’s DoubleX podcast this weekend, Atlantic staff writer Hanna Rosin tried to press Erdely on whether she knew who the boys were or ever tried to contact them, but Erdely evaded the question. On Monday evening, The Washington Post published a follow-up piece confirming Erdely’s failure even to try to talk to the accused; it observed, "News organizations typically seek comment from those accused of criminal acts or from their attorneys as a matter of fairness and balance, as well as to confirm that the individuals exist."

I wrote and called Erdely, and wrote Erdely’s editor at Rolling Stone, to see what they thought about Bradley’s and Soave’s criticisms. Erdely declined to be interviewed and referred me to the magazine's publicity director, but Sean Woods, her editor, was willing to talk. This was Jackie’s story, he said; it was clearly presented as such. “The piece was carefully fact-checked,” he added. He didn’t talk to Jackie himself but the fact-checker did, and “we found Jackie credible.” He points out that, in the article, Erdely cites other undergraduate women with similar stories; though most of them aren’t named either, “we have text messages from those girls. They didn’t want to come forward but we verified who they were.” Besides, he said, since the article came out, several UVA women have also come forward with their stories of rape. “I hold Sabrina in the highest regard,” said Woods. “She’s an excellent reporter. She’s one of the most diligent upright people. I know she’s gonna dot her I’s and cross her T’s.” Woods also confirmed that Erdely didn’t contact the alleged rapists out of respect for Jackie’s wishes.

So what are we to think? Based on a preponderance of evidence, it seems likely that sexual assaults are common at the University of Virginia, especially at its hard-drinking fraternity parties, and that the university handles these cases at best ineffectively and at worst insensitively, perhaps because it fears bad publicity and perhaps because campus procedures for handling sexual misconduct are deeply flawed and perhaps for those and other reasons. UVA itself is obviously extremely worried. Last week, President Teresa Sullivan suspended all fraternity and sorority activity till January, and Monday she issued a statement that at the very least did not refute Jackie’s account: “the behavior depicted is not something we will accept as normal, and the actions described by seven men in the story have betrayed us. We have a problem, and we are going to get after it.” (Sullivan goes on to say that the administration intends to investigate the charges and to work to improve policing, reporting procedures, and “bystander training,” and to reduce binge drinking.)

What we don't know is whether every detail of Jackie's story, as told to Rolling Stone, is true; by not contacting the alleged rapists, Erdely opened the article up to questions. And because Jackie never filed charges, either with local police or with the university, the investigation is taking place more than two years after the incident. We can only hope (and I assume) that it will be conducted more rigorously than campus investigations usually are and that UVA has learned a lesson all American schools need to learn, which is that sexual crimes should be treated as crimes, not as violations of campus policy. “If I had to guess what happened at UVA—and at this point, we can only guess (which is why we should not be passing judgment),” Wendy Kaminer, a civil libertarian and feminist who has written extensively on both rape and free speech on campus, emailed me, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true, and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

another interesting take on it by the editor Richard Bradley, mentioned above. He was the editor of the previously mentioned dishonest Glass. his article is here:

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2014/11/24/is-the-rolling-stone-story-true/

won't copy/paste it though due to language

[Mr. Ambien]

Honestly, it's a really simple thing, and would solve most of the problems of people listening to the media, including the school:

Sit on it until investigations are done.

What, exactly, is accomplished by such instant and visceral reactions, is beyond me, but this bungle is on par with the Duke Lacrosse case. It's not a case where I'd be worried about rape victims not coming forward.. to me this quite nonsensical and a red herring.

People just need to stop and fucking think. Be patient for a change. You don't learn everything overnight.

[NightHawkSniper]

This writer is trash, how hard could it have been to verify the **** you are writing?

[otherwise]

Sorry you have to click the link to read the article. If someone could fix that would be great!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/rolling-stone-re-examines-its-account-of-virginia-rape.html?_r=0

As a white male in today's pc world I feel that I have to be careful about what I say, so not to be labelled a racist, bigot, anti this or anti that, but I have a couple of comments/questions about this story.

Also, if anyone has other links that offer more insight into this please post them.

1 - A magazine as big rolling stone should have done more to fact check before printing this. These are serious allegations that could ruin a person's image, reputation, etc. This opens the university to unfair criticism and is the wrong way to bring light to a serious issue.

2 - Perception and public opinion seem to be taking the pursuit of justice to another level. It seems that anyone can say anything nowadays and if enough people believe you then it must be true. There are plenty of examples of this, from Ferguson to Bill Cosby. Rape is not something to be tolerated and those who commit these crimes should be locked up forever and sterilized. However, with one tweet from a disgruntled ex anyone could be labelled a rapist and within a couple of days their life is over. I know this first hand, one of my friends was accused of rape in high school and spent a day in jail before the woman admitted she made the whole thing up. He ended up dropping out of school because he couldn't deal with the perception by others that he was a rapist.

3 - Will women be more or less likely to report a rape after this?

Would having a magazine publish and then retract a story make someone afraid to come forward?

Lastly, what goes through somebody's mind when they make up or exaggerate a story like this?

Again, I don't know if she is telling a truth or not but I am trying to understand the mindset of someone who would do that.

Does she realize the harm she is doing to others?

Does she think the benefits outweigh the risks?

Does she understand that the more times you cry wolf, the less likely people are to believe not only you but others in the future?

I am curious to read what all of you have to say.

If the girl lied or exaggerated the story about what happened to her, then she should face some serious concequences. Sexual assault and rape can be hard to prove and anyone who lies about it is hurting real victims, many of whom don't ever come forward.

[LostDog]

Media is trending towards the idea that a woman who cries rape is telling the truth until proven guilty.

[Offensive Threat]

People just need to stop and ???? think. Be patient for a change. You don't learn everything overnight.

There are too many news outlets vying for attention. Being first on a breaking story is worth more than being thorough or even factual.

[Guest]

Honestly, it's a really simple thing, and would solve most of the problems of people listening to the media, including the school:

Sit on it until investigations are done.

What, exactly, is accomplished by such instant and visceral reactions, is beyond me, but this bungle is on par with the Duke Lacrosse case. It's not a case where I'd be worried about rape victims not coming forward.. to me this quite nonsensical and a red herring.

People just need to stop and ???? think. Be patient for a change. You don't learn everything overnight.

And yet you're a free-market advocate.

What you complain about is a result of what you advocate.

You can't have it both ways.

[Mr. Ambien]

And yet you're a free-market advocate.

What you complain about is a result of what you advocate.

You can't have it both ways.

So I shouldn't advocate for people to have the freedom to make choices because they make choices I don't like?

Sound logic there, champ.

[freebuddy]

Honestly, it's a really simple thing, and would solve most of the problems of people listening to the media, including the school:

Sit on it until investigations are done.

What, exactly, is accomplished by such instant and visceral reactions, is beyond me, but this bungle is on par with the Duke Lacrosse case. It's not a case where I'd be worried about rape victims not coming forward.. to me this quite nonsensical and a red herring.

People just need to stop and ???? think. Be patient for a change. You don't learn everything overnight.

You mean like Republicans and Bengazi for example?

[freebuddy]

So I shouldn't advocate for people to have the freedom to make choices because they make choices I don't like?

Sound logic there, champ.

I think he's trying to tell you to think critically, you know, that other thing you're always espousing.

[freebuddy]

And yet you're a free-market advocate.

What you complain about is a result of what you advocate.

You can't have it both ways.

Remember who you're addressing here. This is the guy who tries to pass off what he sees on Fox News as "fact".

[Drewismyname]

The psychological warfare that can occur during intimate relationships can sometimes leave either party in a state of in same cases rage and others sadness. I have personally experienced being used and then thrown away and i can relate to how that feeling could make somebody want to ruin anothers life.

Obviously it isnt the right thing to do but people can be predatorily sadistic and evil in the way they treat their partners which can lead to some unfortunate results after

[RUPERTKBD]

There are too many news outlets vying for attention. Being first on a breaking story is worth more than being thorough or even factual.

This seems to happen over and over. In the rush to be the first to break news, they jump the gun and end up with egg on their face.

Exactly what happened after the Boston Marathon bombing, when CNN's John King erroneously (and some would say dangerously) reported that an arrest had been made, when it was not the case.

Of course, social media compounded the problem by incorrectly identifying a suspect and posting his name all over the internet. Something which could have had disastrous consequences.

[Guest]

So I shouldn't advocate for people to have the freedom to make choices because they make choices I don't like?

Sound logic there, champ.

Funny, that's not what I responded to....champ.

A straw man, how shocking.

[Mr. Ambien]

Funny, that's not what I responded to....champ.

A straw man, how shocking.

Master of vague wild tangents hard at work.

[Guest]

Master of vague wild tangents hard at work.

It's just like you to derail your own so-called point.

Attacks seem to be your thing when all else fails.

[Mr. Ambien]

It's just like you to derail your own so-called point.

Attacks seem to be your thing when all else fails.

Pardon me if I point out your inability to concoct an argument including any specificities. Just vague whining about my views. Carry on with the tangent.

[freebuddy]

It's just like you to derail your own so-called point.

Attacks seem to be your thing when all else fails.

Well said.