How badly did Rolling Stone fuck up? Just "merely", or "biblically"?

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

A Note to Our Readers

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

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.

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. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205

Doesn't anyone know how to do proper journalism anymore??

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Righteousness is not a substitute for diligence. nt

[Mass]

2. Particularly frustrating because they tried to start the article in a spectacular way that was not

necessary, without even vetting this story.

This hurts the cause it was supposed to help when the story lent itself to serious questions (who are these friends who, after such an ordeal, discuss of their future in frats rather than taking their friend to get medical attention, for example).


Here is the last WaPo article who says that Jackie asked to be taken out of the story, but that RS refused.

So, I place the blame on the reporter. This story did not need to be published. She did not need to name the frat (given that she did not name the rapists and therefore was casting doubt on people who may not have involved in the story), but she wanted something spectacular to start the story.

[Blue_Tires]

5. And now, she's made it that much harder for any future victims to come forward

without getting UVA, Duke Lacrosse, Kobe Bryant and Jameis Winston thrown back in her face...

[Mass]

7. Exactly

[adirondacker]

25. Absolutley tragic in this sense. nt

[daleanime]

29. Unfortunately true....

[yeoman6987]

82. Duke was a disaster that will be felt for decades

This story? Not long at all. Duke had news stories everyday for months. Some accused those poor lacrosse players of being nasty and ruined their lives. This story is much different. Duke was an American tragedy. I don't think this story will be.

[Tsiyu]

117. I believe those "poor" kids got 20 million each

from Duke.

They were vindicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Rape victims rarely get settlements like that. They rarely get vindicated at all.

[yeoman6987]

118. Wow! Thank you! I didn't know that.

My tears dried up a bit. However, you could not be more correct about rape victims who don't even see the perp put in jail much less cash.

[KoKo]

63. Agree with you...

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2014, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

In the first paragraphs the writer of the artice put their own emotions into the article putting thoughts into the victims head.

I have no doubts that UVA and the other famous Party Universities have had the problems described in the article for decades, but it's sad that the problems won't be addressed more seriously because of this article.

The most interesting part of the article was the revelation about following some of those who were accused of rapes on campus and finding that they later went on to be serial rapists. Some serious further research might be revealing about that.

Cover ups of the rapes on Campuses (particularly at the large "Party Schools) have been going on for far too long. The date rape drugs being the newest evil where the victim can be left in a daze not knowing what happened and who our how many victimized her.

Hopefully other news sources will do more investigation rather than just trashing Rolling Stone for it's reliance on a reporter that they didn't vett information from more thoroughly and ignoring that this is a real problem.

[yeoman6987]

79. Most thought this was a great article

Now it stinks? The idea is still there.how can we cheer one day and sneer the next?

[Mass]

81. I never thought it was great.

In fact, I thought Jackie's story was not necessary and was hurting the larger story.

So, I did not change my mind.

[yeoman6987]

83. Your the only one I know of

That is good that you use your mind unlike the others.

[GGJohn]

102. It was a great article, until certain facts came out,

things like the guy she says took her to the frat house had never met her, the fact that there is no staircase in the back of the house despite her being adamant that it was there, etc, now, it stinks.

[Brickbat]

3. So poorly handled from day one. And it's too bad -- it's not like this kind of story would be hard

to report out with a little bit of work. The credulity exhibited by the editors and reporters in this case is pretty disheartening.

[Beaverhausen]

4. what new information?

[Mass]

6. Here

(just two paragraphs of a long article)

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

Jackie contradicted an earlier interview, saying on Thursday that she did not know if her main attacker actually was a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

“He never said he was in Phi Psi,” she said, while noting that she was positive that the date function and attack occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on Sept. 28, 2012. “I know it was Phi Psi because a year afterward my friend pointed out the building to me and said that’s where it happened.”

Tommy Reid, president of the Inter-Fraternity Council, said that all Greek organizations must register parties with the IFC. He said that the council’s records did not date back to the fall of 2012.

[Blue_Tires]

10. It also has to be said that

it's never, EVER a good sign when a managing editor writes a public "Mistakes were made" letter without saying somewhere "Despite all this, we still stand behind the story and our reporter"

Whether the reporter was just sloppy and didn't investigate all the angles, or whether Jackie was telling a well-constructed fairy tale remains to be seen...Either way, if RS doesn't stand by this story, certain people will be cleaning out their desks pretty soon...

[hexola]

8. Wow

Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark!

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. Was this Rolling Stone article then a smear story to try to discredit rape victims and their rape

stories? And in particular, Jackie? Why would RS choose the journalist? Was she vetted by RS before hiring her?

These are the questions that need to be asked!

Edited to change gender of journalist.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. Holy lord. nt

[Mass]

12. Probably just lousy reporting. The reporter and editor wanted something

spectacular to get people's attention. They did not vet the details. This need for sensationalism is a real problem in reporting.

It is even possible that part of Jackie's story is correct, but we will never know as RS botched the story.

[Blue_Tires]

13. Sadly, that's been the trend for awhile now

Even among famous, highly-respected, pulitzer prize-winning journalists...

Once upon a time reporters went wherever the facts led them and wrote their story on that basis...Now, in the era of so-called "new" journalism (especially those working in political, investigative, and human interest writing), reporters jump in with a pre-determined narrative, and find facts/sources to help bolster that narrative...

[lancer78]

51. This method of journalism isn't "new"

Yellow journalism has existed for many years and was a reason America got in the Spanish-American war.

[Dont call me Shirley]

21. Sadly, us rape victims always are smeared and defiled way after the initial event.

Articles in famous magazines included in the "gang bang" (meaning gang rape)

[MADem]

35. Flash for cash....no editorial review, no vetting, no nothing. If it sounds good, print it.

It's why people don't have faith in institutions, like a free press, anymore. Everyone is out for themselves, money grubbing assholes who will sell their souls for the almighty dollar.

Integrity is a thing of the past. RS has been going down this road for awhile. Now it is biting them in their well fed ass.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. The journalist is not a 'he' but a 'she'.

nt

[hexola]

17. Seriously??? Sure! What publication wouldn't sacrifice decades of credibility?

=eyeroll=

[Dont call me Shirley]

23. Somebody who is a somebody who owes somebody a favor.

[HappyMe]

31. Oh c'mon.

They did not do all of the due diligence they should have.

[Dont call me Shirley]

80. The intentional smearing if rape victims occurs in the media constantly. Wake up!

http://www.alternet.org/story/153968/son_of_new_york_police_commissioner_accused_of_rape,_media_smears_alleged_victim

[TampaAnimusVortex]

95. I think the reptilian overlords set it all up!

Obviously anything we don't like must be a set up right? It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

[HappyMe]

98. It DOES happen sometimes.

This RS article ISN'T one of them.

[Dont call me Shirley]

104. So the rape victim (always) lies?

This is the gist of the retraction.

It could be crappy reporting. Or... A savvy way to victim blame. Read the link I posted.

[lancer78]

54. Ratings

Pure and simple. The facts be damned. The so called "fourth estate" is now nothing but a bunch of corporate whores chasing money.

[Brickbat]

24. .

[Recursion]

39. No, this was a well-meaning journalist who forgot the line between reporting and advocacy, I think

It was basically "I'm going to have Jackie tell her story and not verify it with others because it is harmful to victims of sexual assault to seem like you are doubting them."

That's probably a good point, but at that point you are no longer doing journalism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. +1 n/t

[tritsofme]

55. Surely, you can't be serious.

[snooper2]

90. do you have their phone number? it is listed

[Posteritatis]

103. I imagine the article isn't per se, but a lot of the responses to it will be. (nt)

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. It's bad but not Duke Lacrosse bad nt

[B2G]

18. Unless you're one of the accused. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. I am looking but haven't seen individuals named.

Hence my claim. I could be wrong.

[B2G]

33. Don't kid yourself

Everyone knows exactly who they are...friends, family, those on campus.

[YarnAddict]

30. IMHO,

this is bad, but there were no details given that pointed to a specific individual.

Lena Dunham's account in her book was worse--gave a name (Barry) and other identifiable details that were easily tracked down. Sounds like that never happened (at least not as she recounted) but it still made the real Barry's life miserable, and put him under a cloud of suspicion.

This is why I feel so passionately about false rape allegations! They make people skeptical about real rapes, and they make the lives of the accused who are innocent a living hell.

[GGJohn]

32. Thankfully, it didn't get that far.

[RobinA]

70. This is Worse

than Duke Lacrosse bad because the accuser is a student. This is the stereotypical fraternity gang rape story AND the mythical woman crying rape (even if something happened, this screw-up will be remembered as a false allegation). This is just bad on every level.

[Dreamer Tatum]

74. It isn't as bad yet because there isn't a rogue DA leveling charges.

Just an overzealous set of assholes who have yet to learn that "frat" doesn't necessarily imply "rape factory."

[GGJohn]

16. Shades of Tawana Brawley or Crystal Mangum?

[MADem]

40. No--shades of Stephen Glass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass

Shades of Lara Logan.

Shades of Judith Miller.


And so on....

The FIRST line of defense is the reporter. If they are a lying sack of shit, it all goes wobbly. It is the job of the reporter to vet, vet, vet--and even more so as there are no damned editors any more who know the difference between "rein" and "reign," never mind will ask the hard questions about sources.

[GGJohn]

71. What I meant was a woman making a false rape accusation.

It rarely happens, but when it does, it can be devasting to the accused and make it that much harder for women who are raped, that's why I referenced those 2 women.

[MADem]

77. That is the unfortunate fallout of this business--that people will point to a couple of

mentally troubled attention seekers instead of pointing at the real people holding the lion's share of the blame--those people without any mental impairment who were blinded by dollar signs and newsmagazine sales, who did not do their jobs, who did not vet their sources or double check their "too good to be true*" blockbuster story.

*To be clear to anyone who might seek to take offense, "good" is in reference to the attitude of the newsmagazine that this story was a real moneymaker, not that the subject matter was positive in any way.

[HappyMe]

20. This is a pretty big fuck up.

I thought RS was more careful than this. Too bad they rushed to get the story, rather than take the time to do it right.

[Are_grits_groceries]

22. Extremely bad.

It will be cited everywhere as proof that all rape victims lie. The truth is only 2-6% are false.

Oy!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

27. And we can shoot back FUCK YOU, and mention the stat you have in your post there.

So since 3% of rape accusers lie and this makes them all non credible, can we say the same about police?

Since probably 13% of them are bad apples with attitudes, can we say ALL cops are bad?

[HappyMe]

28. It just makes

actual victims more afraid to come forward. This is a big scandal now.

[Recursion]

110. I thought the 2%-6% figure was for criminal complaints

Not simply "claims" in any context.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Put yourself in the RS editor's/publishers shoes three weeks ago.

Expressing skepticism over rape allegations is considered bad form in liberal circles.

I have little doubt that the reporter would have leaked the story if RS had refused to publish for that reason. From RS perspective, it was a lose/lose scenario.

[Recursion]

112. UVa was having a sexual assault policy review at the time

The (unsourced, unverified) claim from several journalism bloggers is that RS rushed the story to get it out ahead of that policy review meeting.

If true (and I stress if, particularly on this thread), that's damning.

[Recursion]

111. Rolling Stone was also big on the vaccine-autism link stories

They've hit some out of the park in the past, as well as striking out sometimes.

[Mass]

26. It seems that RS is not the only one posting before vetting. Here is one of the Wapo edits

(not documented, of course)

[Recursion]

46. WaPo is still standing by that claim

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

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.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. It's one thing to report his claim. Another to verify that it is true.

It's verifiable that he didn't belong to the fraternity. He claims to have never met Jackie.

That claim may be plausible, but it's not verifiable due to the difficulty in proving a negative.

[olddots]

34. the only blame I see is with the people who rape people

They are so sick they don't know how sick they are plus there is a rape culture out there that can only be eraticated thru education .

[MADem]

48. No--there are TWO WRONGS here, at least.

Of course no one should rape people--that's pretty much a given.

The sad fact is, though, that this fuckup by RS will-like it or not, try to minimize it, ignore it, pretend it was a one-off--be USED as "proof" even though it serves as nothing more than "proof" that some reporters are lazy, scurrilous assholes who are more interested in crafting an exciting, eye-catching "narrative" than telling the truth and doing the work to vet the story properly BEFORE publishing it. RS earned a bundle from that story, that reporter got a payday from that story--and that story had legs. It was all a lie, though, and that lie will be used to "prove" a point that apologists want to make.

So, the second wrong is pisspoor reporting, getting published by major newspapers and news magazines that seem to believe that they can make these kinds of "mistakes" without having their reputation impacted.

It's a sad frigging day when the damn National Enquirer is more accurate and trustworthy than the NYT, or even "Rolling Stone." But that IS where we're at--the Enquirer pays for their news, and they make their sources sign a "You LIE? You DIE" contract. RS can't bother to have editors ride herd on their reporters and INSIST that both sides of a story be covered. It's unconscionable that they published a one-sided story without even trying to get the story from the other side.

[Nye Bevan]

108. Wait... so because rape is bad, it's OK to make up stories about it and present it as fact? (nt)

[nichomachus]

36. Now try to imagine

The outrage and vilification RS would get if they said they didn't believe her and refused to run her story. "OMG, victimized twice -- once by the rapists and again by that horrible Rolling Stone. This is what allows rape to go unpunished. No one will believe the victim."

So RS was kind of between a rock and a hard place on that one.

[maced666]

37. Or, they could have waited and verified story.

not hard.

[nichomachus]

38. So how does that go?

Hi, Joe, someone gave me your name. Do you happen to be a rapist?

[Recursion]

42. Well, for instance, they could have asked her three friends who found her after the party

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

In particular I was surprised that she didn't ask "Chris" to confirm or deny that she said "we can't take her to the hospital, her reputation will be ruined".

In the Slate interview the reporter was very cagey about whether Jackie had actually told her the man's real name or not.

[RobinA]

73. Yep...

if I were the reporter the friends would have been the first people I went to because the whole friend issue struck me as a tad off.

[Dreamer Tatum]

75. The other problem is that the original article did little to clarify that it was all "alleged"

It reads like the events are known facts.

[GGJohn]

76. She didn't even do that.

This was piss poor reporting on her part and RS not insisting on verifying it is gross negligence on their part.

[Mass]

41. The article was NOT about her, but about UVA's rape culture.

They had plenty of other cases to choose from. They chose her because it was sensational, even after she asked to be taken out of the story.

So, no, they breached ethics at two different levels:
not follow the wishes of the victim,
no trying to talk to the other party.

http://t.co/GR48D3rbwj
The WaPo article is linked at the link, and all the ethical reasons why it was wrong.

[Celebration]

43. they could have checked with the fraternity

They could have at least told them the person in question was not a member, and her details about the stairs were flat out wrong.

She didn't identify the fraternity house until a year after the event. Maybe she identified the wrong place???

[Recursion]

47. Wait. There's a huge distance between "I don't believe you"

and "I can't get enough confirmation of your claims to put this in print right now, particularly if you would prefer I not talk to key people here."

Plenty of stories fail to pan out exactly that way; it doesn't even mean they're false, just that they can't be sufficiently verified.

[CincyDem]

44. My hypothesis: UVA alumni made RS an offer they couldn't refuse.

...roll over on the story or get rolled over trying to defend yourself.

One of the top law schools in the country. Any possibility that more than a few alums, many of whom were likely involved in greek life on campus, got together and suggested that they take RS to the cleaners. Even if RS is vindicated, it's a no win situation for them. Better to capitulate now versus be right and out of business after legal fees. Especially if you're up against some of the best who are working pro bono (since UVA is so destitute - lol). Charlottesville pride runs deep - among the deepest of all schools.

They used to say "never pick a fight with someone who buys printing ink by the barrel".

I think what we're learning here is the new corollary:

"Never pick a fight with someone who breeds lawyers like spiders breed baby spiders."

[Dreamer Tatum]

45. WADR, your hypothesis is full of shit

Their journalism was shoddy and essentially accuses people unfairly.

[CincyDem]

52. Yeah - I guess your right

Because alumni never get their shorts in a bunch when someone says something bad about their hallowed halls.

Its much easier to believe that the woman in the article is lying because we all know there so much benefit in being the one to cry wolf.

So let's jump on that bandwagon right away to be sure we get a seat for the victim bashing here.

In today's world, we know she could have had video of the events from start to finish and many would still question her story so let's not go down the shoddy journalism route.

How about we consider the possibility that, from RS' point of view, they might have published as good journalism and retracted as good business.

[Recursion]

61. The woman in the article spent a week begging Erdely to take her out of the article

But was told by Erdely that the piece would go forward as-is with or without her continued input.

[Dreamer Tatum]

66. Attitudes like yours cause LARGE checks to be written

to people like the Duke lacrosse players.

[Recursion]

49. Except there's basic factual problems like there not having been a party there the night RS claimed

Or the frat not even rushing in the fall semester.

That's not a discrepancy you can just conjure up; that's a reporter failing to be a reporter out of sympathy with a subject.

[MADem]

50. Are you dreaming? REPUTATION is everything. The integrity of RS has been bludgeoned by

this revelation. No amount of money can compensate for that.

[Recursion]

53. Somehow RS could publish a smackdown of Goldman Sachs without flinching, but a UVA Frat got to them

It's kind of an odd argument...

[MADem]

58. It's an absurd construct, that they'd take money from a public university (that has to account

for every single one of their expenditures to the Commonwealth of VA) to hush up something that was already past the worst of the "news arc."

More than an odd argument, it is a poor one, I'm afraid.

[GGJohn]

78. Are we to assume that you'll be posting your proof that this is what happened?

[CincyDem]

106. Nope.

No proof. That's why it's clearly called out as a hypothesis.

Still - you've got to consider there's more that one pissed off UVA lawyer alum threatening RS with enough horsepower that pseudo retraction is the only option.

But, now that I think about it through the lens of these responses, I guess y'all are right. It's crazy to think that anything like this girl's story could actually happen on a college campus today. Totally impossible. It's just so over the top, only happens in Penthouse Forum letters where the girl goes home smiling at the end after sharing a cigarette with the crowd.

I don't know that I was thinking.

Peace out.

[GGJohn]

107. Of course it's happened on college campuses before,

but this particular instance? Highly doubtful, just too many glaring inconsistencies in her story and gross negligence from the reporter and RS.
Peace out to you too and have a great weekend.

[CincyDem]

109. U2

Unfortunately, since last weekend was a holiday, this is a 2x "honey do list" weekend and my only saving grace is that the rain will limit us to inside jobs.

have a good one.

[yeoman6987]

105. I hope UVA sues the hell out of RS

How many students changed their minds about attending UVA. How many people changed their perception of UVA. This was a disastrous nightmare for the school. The President took heat and even had to talk with reporters. Frats were looked at poorly and maybe even revoked. Horrid situation for the school. And all because of RS. I guess they sold a lot of magazines this month. Sad!

[merrily]

56. Fucked up royally, maybe, but not biblically.

[Mass]

57. Question - Are RS's reporters paid by page views ?

This could explain the rush to put Jackie's story in the article when it was neither properly vetted or even necessary (the article is about rapes at UVa, and the story distracts from the larger story).

[MADem]

59. No. Matt Taibbi is a RS reporter (again). Bloggers are paid by page views. nt

[Mass]

62. Thanks. I am so furious at the damage this story made at rape victims

[MADem]

64. First up to blame is the REPORTER. Second up is the EDITORIAL STAFF at RS.

Third up is the PUBLISHER.

We would have never heard of this woman (who is plainly disturbed in some fashion if she's inventing and retracting stories in order to get attention and then not want it) had those people done their job.

If these fools have bad instincts and can't smell when a story is "off," because they are so desperate for a good headline, they should be ashamed of themselves and get into another line of work where they don't need to use the poor judgment they so clearly possess.

[Ykcutnek]

60. Did they crowdsource this story out to Reddit? nt

[hrmjustin]

65. Sounds like very bad journalism.

Don't know all the details but they had an obligation to do their best when reporting this story.

I have no idea whether this means that her story is still true or not and I am not going to make any judgement on that but the journalist that wrote this story has a lot to answer for and RS should consider firing the journalist.

[Brickbat]

67. They fucked up the apology, anyway.

we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.

They didn't misplace trust. They failed to perform basic journalism.

[Dreamer Tatum]

69. One day someone will make a lot of money

by going back to actual, hard journalism that reports the truth without editorial bias or agenda.

There are those doing it now, but they're being drowned out by the Rolling Stones of the world.

[Brickbat]

72. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to do that kind of journalism.

[snooper2]

92. Um they exist, they are called, VICE

[Dreamer Tatum]

96. Oh, you mean that group that employs Jason Leopold?

[snooper2]

97. didn't even know he was there until I wiki it, I don't approve of that idiot

but by and far VICE does great reporting on the ground when everyone else sits in their office and does commentary.

[tenderfoot]

68. Badly but at least they apologized and didn't lie us into a war like the NY Times.

eom

[seaglass]

84. Not recoverable IMO. Chris Hayes is right, they threw Jackie under the bus because they didn't

do some basic fact checking.

[LittleBlue]

85. That presumption of innocence stuff isn't just an antiquated belief

that we should ignore. It's important. And this case shows why.

I believed this story because it was published by RS. A publication that until now I'd little reason to doubt.

The author should be fired, and the defamed person should consider a lawsuit if possible.

[branford]

86. The settlements of the inevitable defamation claims will be very large.

The hit to RS's credibility could prove irreparable for quite some time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. RS didn't name any "perpetrators". I doubt they're liable. n/t

[branford]

99. They named the fraternity and chapter.

The fraternity itself can sue, and potentially any of its membership at UVA during the relevant period.

Note also that since the fraternity and students are not public figures, and the magazine admitted it basically did nothing to confirm the allegations, even going as far as promising Jackie that they wouldn't as a condition of granting the interviews, I don't even know how they can mount a defense that is anything but laughable.

I imagine that the the RS statement today was drafted in concert with legal counsel in an attempt to mitigate potential damages.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. You may be right. n/t

[branford]

101. Upon further reflection, UVA might also be a viable defendant.

The reputation of the university was certainly damaged by the retracted allegations in the article.

Rolling Stone (or its insurer) might soon be financing some new rape counseling centers on campus.

[iandhr]

87. If this is true. It is highly depressing and a double injustice.

The first injustice is against the people accused. The second injustice is against future rape victims because they might be afraid to come forward.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. The apology is a big step in unfucking themselves.

But yeah, in the future this should lesson in journalism classes.

[Odin2005]

113. The MRA assholes are going to have a field day with this.

This is going to be their new go-to "proof" that all rape victims are liars.

[Recursion]

114. And simultaneously Lena Dunham's claim seems to be having some problems too

I'm going to have to avoid reddit for the next few days.

[deutsey]

116. What a mess

As the UVA advocate who introduced Jackie to the reporter (and who now doesn't know what to believe about the story anymore) said:

“The doubt cast on Jackie’s story has been feeding the myth that we have been combating for 40 years — that women lie about rape. And I feel that will put women at a disadvantage in coming forward,” Renda said.

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

[Cha]

115. "Rolling Stone Editor Clarifies: 'Failure Is On Us,' Not Alleged Rape Victim"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/will-dana-jackie-story-rolling-stone

[Darb]

119. I read the story, did she get raped or not? Is there new "evidence", or new "doubt"

Sounds like doubt. See "Climate Change".

[kiva]

120. As I posted in the other thread about this:

This is what happens when articles are written by people who care less about the truth than about fluffing their resume...she seems equally proud of being featured on Fox News and on Feminsting:

http://zerlinamaxwell.com/

[Blue_Tires]

121. +1

[Blue_Tires]

122. Update: It gets worse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/07/updated-apology-digs-bigger-hole-for-rolling-stone/?tid=pm_opinions_pop