Rolling Stone and the UVA rape case

[PrincessFiona]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

The apology and then re-apology have been all over the news. It's curious to me that Rolling Stone never took the time to dig a little deeper. The discrepancies between Jackie's story and some of the facts ie no party that night/no staircase call her story into question. I get that trauma can cause the facts to be distorted though. When Zoe was in the NICU, I vividly remember looking out at a tree that made me feel peaceful. Later, I discovered that there was no tree . My mind had sort of made it up. If someone had asked me for my account, it wouldn't have matched up with reality.

What does this do to the movement to bring awareness for sex crimes on campus? I feel like it's a step back.

Kris

[OrionGrad]

This whole thing makes me very sad. Rolling Stone should have done more fact checking.
It sucks that this is falling so much on "Jackie's" shoulders, especially in light of the example you shared about memories being distorted.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

They made the fraternity the victim. That was a pretty big mistake. And it's distracting from the very real problem on college campuses.

The author admitted she "went looking for the right story on the right campus" so she clearly had an agenda. Instead of selecting from the myriad stories known or confirm-able, she went looking for a story on a campus that "fit" the image (Southern campus, lots of frats, prestigious school, etc.) and set things backward. It's the same damn thing as "Duke lacrosse" which now gets cited all the time as a reason not to believe victim(s) because someone lied. Only in this case, the author had a much greater responsibility than a non-journalist/Duke lacrosse accuser and she failed to act properly.

[PrincessFiona]

I wonder what will happen to the journalist who wrote the story. I'm assuming she'll lose her job over this .... but I think the editor should too.

[OrionGrad]

I wonder what will happen to the journalist who wrote the story. I'm assuming she'll lose her job over this .... but I think the editor should too.

Yeah, the reporter messed up big time, but a lot of other people (editors, fact checkers, etc.) messed up just as much. I think it'll be a shame if she and Jackie are the only two to take a hit from this. There are a lot of other people on staff at RS who should have been taking a closer look at this before it went to print.

[Deebs]

The sad thing is, when Jackie's story was published, SO much was revealed about the rape culture at UVA. The mural that seems to be a source of school pride kind of blew me away - not in a good sense. Will all that be lost now?

[bobk]

I think this fiasco will have more of an impact on journalism than on campus rape. It's not like there are lots of people who believe rape is cool and not a real problem. The trouble is trying to find the proper balance in protecting both victims and innocents who have been falsely accused. This is a very long, but well done article that examines the issues involved:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...e_efforts.html

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

Well, the commission found that "1) Rolling Stone messed up and didn't do any fact checking and 2) Rolling Stone will make no changes to editorial process and everyone involved will keep their jobs".

Perfect.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ng_report.html