Rolling Stone "our trust was misplaced." UVA assault article retracted?

[unsinkable]

"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 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."

 

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

[Catwoman]

Holy cow. :eek:

[Forget-Me-Not]

Oh wow. I don't know what to think. That story has haunted me since I read it. I sincerely hope this isn't a case of the good ol' boys closing ranks to discredit a woman who suffered something severely traumatic.

[Hikin' Mama]

Oh wow. I don't know what to think. That story has haunted me since I read it. I sincerely hope this isn't a case of the good ol' boys closing ranks to discredit a woman who suffered something severely traumatic.

Exactly how I feel.

[Alessandra]

:ohmy:  :sad: 

[Guest]

I would assume RS would not post a retraction unless there is SOLID evidence that it didn't happen.

 

I got flamed in the Bill Cosby thread but this is why there must be proof of a crime other than "she said".

[unsinkable]

I would assume RS would not post a retraction unless there is SOLID evidence that it didn't happen.

 

I got flamed in the Bill Cosby thread but this is why there must be proof of a crime other than "she said".

I'm not sure what word to use bc the article is still there with the disclaimer above it.

 

So it is not really retracted then, right?

[unsinkable]

Why they allowed it to go to press without any sort of fact checking, with the reporter ham strung with the blackmail of her source...

Can you elaborate about who hamstrung whom and who is blackmailing whom?

[Forget-Me-Not]

CNN article outlining some of the discrepancies:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/us/rolling-stone-uva-apology/index.html

[hornblower]

Washington Post has a long article on it.

[bettyandbob]

Given the history UVA has, I'm going to wait this out. It's pretty obvious that a fraternity would want to dispute the claims. I'm skeptical because UVAs fraternities and UVA in general has been known as a heavy party school since before my father went to college in the 50s. When I was in school at William and Mary, I knew people who would go to UVA for a weekend because the party atmosphere was unsurpassed there. At a school where that level of party culture is present, I would expect a sexual assault rates to be high and I would expect a certain amount of discounting of assault.

 

So I will wait for rebuttals to review clearly.

[unsinkable]

Jackie, the source, gave the story on condition that the reporter never contact Drew or any of the others she accused,

 

I don't understand why the magazine accepted and ran the piece given that request.

Gotcha. Thanks.

[hornblower]

Washington Post has a long article on it.

 

quoting myself to tangentially rant a bit about online media which alter text without indicating they've done so. WaPo has changed a significant line in their story.

https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/540944585707757568 - pls click through & see the original & altered statements

 

 

& this:  "@jamisonfoser 22m22 minutes ago

If you’re writing about Jackie as a media story, the Washington Post deleting w/out explanation its assertion that she lied is a big piece."

 

 

[Trish]

Given the history UVA has, I'm going to wait this out. It's pretty obvious that a fraternity would want to dispute the claims. I'm skeptical because UVAs fraternities and UVA in general has been known as a heavy party school since before my father went to college in the 50s. When I was in school at William and Mary, I knew people who would go to UVA for a weekend because the party atmosphere was unsurpassed there. At a school where that level of party culture is present, I would expect a sexual assault rates to be high and I would expect a certain amount of discounting of assault.

 

So I will wait for rebuttals to review clearly.

 

If only Rolling Stone had shared your sense of skepticism.

 

In general.

 

If this alleged assaulter lived on campus, wouldn't they have a Campus Directory that would allow her to figure out where he lived? Not everyone who attends a fraternity party, or house party, or dorm party, is a member of that living group.

[Momof3littles]

How horrible if fabricated, but we still need to focus on the fact that universities all over the US have mishandled sex assault cases at a level that is disturbing.  We know UNC, Princeton, and many others have blamed survivors, misinformed and mislead students, etc. That hasn't changed; those are facts, and the universities themselves have acknowledged that their policies needed to be changed.  Our military has also mishandled sex assault cases over and over again, going back almost 20 years ago I remember the stories about how the academies treated survivors.  They continue to have issues with their handling of these cases.  Those are facts, and that's a major concern, even if the UVA story ends up having been fabricated.

[Catwoman]

How horrible if fabricated, but we still need to focus on the fact that universities all over the US have mishandled sex assault cases at a level that is disturbing. We know UNC, Princeton, and many others have blamed survivors, misinformed and mislead students, etc. That hasn't changed; those are facts, and the universities themselves have acknowledged that their policies needed to be changed. Our military has also mishandled sex assault cases over and over again, going back almost 20 years ago I remember the stories about how the academies treated survivors. They continue to have issues with their handling of these cases. Those are facts, and that's a major concern, even if the UVA story ends up having been fabricated.

The problem is that every time a woman lies about having been attacked, she potentially damages the credibility of every other woman who reports a legitimate attack.

 

It sickens me to think that anyone would fabricate a story about a vicious attack. What a horrible thing to do, on so many levels.

[Momof3littles]

The problem is that every time a woman lies about having been attacked, she potentially damages the credibility of every other woman who reports a legitimate attack.

 

It sickens me to think that anyone would fabricate a story about a vicious attack. What a horrible thing to do, on so many levels.

 

Absolutely, and I am concerned that this story being "fabricated" is going to detract from the real conversations that need to happen about the mishandling of sex assault cases by institutions over and over again.  This story, while terrible if indeed fabricated, doesn't change the fact that many of the nation's universities have mishandled cases and mislead students for decades.

[Catwoman]

Absolutely, and I am concerned that this story being "fabricated" is going to detract from the real conversations that need to happen about the mishandling of sex assault cases by institutions over and over again. This story, while terrible if indeed fabricated, doesn't change the fact that many of the nation's universities have mishandled cases and mislead students for decades.

:iagree:

[Trish]

Since there are so many of these assaults going on, the least they could do is pick one to report on that doesn't have so many questions surrounding it, or at least so many non-supported facts.

 

If this girl's friends are doubting her story, the news media ought to be at least as cautious.

[bettyandbob]

Having read the article in The Post, I think there's a good possibility that the problems with the article may be a result of the writer not the victim.

 

It seems to me it would be hard to piece together a story with a victim of a terrible crime who has PTSD 2 years after the fact. In the Post article the victim even says she felt she had no control over her story.

 

I do not think we can say the victim was not assaulted. We can ask what her story actually was and look at whether a journalist became overzealous in filling in gaps. The story on the victim's original account may have had too fuzzy details to make it compelling. And it may have been difficult as interviews proceeded for someone who is in treatment to tell the interviewer to stop.

[MinivanMom]

Since there are so many of these assaults going on, the least they could do is pick one to report on that doesn't have so many questions surrounding it, or at least so many non-supported facts.

 

If this girl's friends are doubting her story, the news media ought to be at least as cautious.

 

I agree.

 

I appears they chose the most outrageous story (gang rape by 7 men!) rather than a story that had strong evidence backing it up. That's unfortunate, because rape is outrageous by definition. It shouldn't need to be a gang rape story to get people's attention.

[Trish]

Seems the Rolling Stone writer committed the journalistic equivalent of assault on this woman. She said she didn't want to go forward as a source in the story, and the writer insisted on keeping her in it anyway. So the writer has mirrored the actions of (whoever the real assaulters were), in a strange kind of way. [not saying the violations are the same of course]

[bettyandbob]

I am not sure why you would think that after reading the WaPo article given that it says the victim provided completely false info.

She said in the Post article she did not identify him as a member of the fraternity. She gave a name that closely matched a person who worked at the aquatics center, which was a fact in her original assertions.

 

Having been interviewed on a much more benign subject and seen what I said turned into something completely different in a "news" story, I have experienced having my own facts misrepresented. The stakes are only higher in such an inflammatory article.

[swimmermom3]

Do they still have journalism schools? If so, what exactly are they teaching?  If it's true that the fraternity did not have a party on the date of the reported assault, how did anyone including the administration who handled her allegations, miss that?

 

Either way, this outcome is awful.  A closing of the ranks is just too ugly to imagine, but as the mother of a 22 yo girl, I find it difficult to imagine making the whole thing up, speaking about it on campus, and then talking to a national magazine. UVA and other campuses and assault survivors are not going to be helped by this.

[TranquilMind]

I would assume RS would not post a retraction unless there is SOLID evidence that it didn't happen.

 

I got flamed in the Bill Cosby thread but this is why there must be proof of a crime other than "she said".

This is so true.

 

I read an editorial that just raised so many questions about this account.  I have no doubt young women are regularly assaulted, but this story was really out there. 

[swimmermom3]

This is so true.

 

I read an editorial that just raised so many questions about this account.  I have no doubt young women are regularly assaulted, but this story was really out there. 

 

What parts of this story were "really out there" for you?

[goldberry]

Do they still have journalism schools? If so, what exactly are they teaching?  If it's true that the fraternity did not have a party on the date of the reported assault, how did anyone including the administration who handled her allegations, miss that?

 

 

 

 UVA and other campuses and assault survivors are not going to be helped by this.

:iagree:  :iagree:

[unsinkable]

What parts of this story were "really out there" for you?

 

 

I don't understand how she was thrown on top of a glass table, which then broke and raped by 7 men for 3 hours, then raped with a beer bottle and not get medical care.

 

And even her "friends" who didn't encourage her to get medical care. I don't understand them, either.

[swimmermom3]

I don't understand how she was thrown on top of a glass table, which then broke and raped by 7 men for 3 hours, then raped with a beer bottle and not get medical care.

 

And even her "friends" who didn't encourage her to get medical care. I don't understand them, either.

 

Well, yes, that is fairly difficult to understand. Shock? I don't know. And I would wonder how drunk the friends were?

 

Sigh. Darn it all. Darn Rolling Stone for being careless and darn it all if this young woman is less than truthful or that she felt compelled to exaggerate an actual situation.

 

There are so many areas Rolling Stone could have verified and I just can't believe they didn't do it.  If she worked with the guy at pool, that could have been verified too.

[unsinkable]

I agree with you.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit!

 

:lol: :D :lol:

[TranquilMind]

What parts of this story were "really out there" for you?

Well, it seems odd that 2 fraternity members told 7 other pledges to rape this woman, and the pledges just AGREE?  What?  Seriously?   Not one of the 7 thinks this criminal requirement for fraternity admission might be a problem they want to report to the administration or the police?  That is unbelievable.  So one is apparently chosen to take her on a date, and he does, and then to this party. according to the young lady.

 

He asked her to go upstairs (which I do believe- I can see an innocent teen girl thinking, "Ooh, he wants to kiss me." or something like that.)

Then all of these animals attack her and NO ONE in the entire house hears or responds or anything?  Hard to believe.  There is not one person in that entire fraternity with any sort of moral system or decency?  That is scary, if so.

 

Then afterward, beaten up, bruised, and bloody, she calls HER OWN FRIENDS and they don't want to help her either?  Now, that part is where I start thinking something is up here.   Her female friend asked if this is such a great idea to report this heinous gang rape, and her male friends say they don't want to be bothered or involved in helping her because they too hope to pledge fraternities.  With "friends" like that, who needs enemies, as they say.

 

WHAT??? Are people like this really on this planet - and SO MANY of them in this one story of this one fraternity?    If so, God help us all.  These amoral kids will be in charge in about 20 years. 

[TranquilMind]

I don't understand how she was thrown on top of a glass table, which then broke and raped by 7 men for 3 hours, then raped with a beer bottle and not get medical care.

 

And even her "friends" who didn't encourage her to get medical care. I don't understand them, either.

Yeah, that too.  The glass table situation.  How would everyone involved not have cuts or worse? 

[TechWife]

I just want to point out that just because the fraternity didn't host an official party on the night in question, it doesn't mean that there weren't people at the frat house partying. 

 

I have no idea what to believe about this story now, I'm still reading.

[bettyandbob]

 

Then all of these animals attack her and NO ONE in the entire house hears or responds or anything? Hard to believe. There is not one person in that entire fraternity with any sort of moral system or decency? That is scary, if so.

 

 

I don't find it hard to believe no one in the house heard. Or at least thought what they heard was no unusual. I don't have a lot of experience with fraternities--I didn't have a lot of friends involved in the Greek system. However, I've been in a fraternity on a night that there was no official party. It was a noisy place. Lots of things could have been happening and I would not have recognized what.

 

As for the victims friends who told her not to report 2 years ago, these would have been young women probably all 17-18 (first years, like the victim) who the victim had known a month or less.

[Reefgazer]

I agree with the bolded.  That said, we don't know the nature of the "irregularities", and have to consider that the irregularities may not have any bearing on whether or not a crime was actually committed. 

I would assume RS would not post a retraction unless there is SOLID evidence that it didn't happen.

I got flamed in the Bill Cosby thread but this is why there must be proof of a crime other than "she said".

 

[Trish]

Police report just came out. They found nothing to corrobrate the original story. The "date" that the woman allegedly went out with on the night she got raped was apparently a composite of the names of two or three men she went to high school with. (all swimmers) None had actually dated her, and the one whose name was closest was competing in a swim meet at another campus on the night in question, and hadn't been to UVA in six years. There was no party at the fraternity, and no one who had dated her at the fraternity.

 

The incident where she had a glass bottle thrown at her by friends of the alleged rapist was not corroborated by her own friends who supposedly helped her after the incident. Nothing was reported to campus police, even though they encouraged her to make a report at the time. The call she made to her mother after the glass bottle incident was not corrobrated by phone records. 

 

The woman refused to speak with the Charlotte police doing the investigation on her lawyer's advice.

 

 

[AMJ]

"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 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."

 

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

 

It is not journalism nor reporting of facts to only cover one side of a story.  No matter how guilty someone appears to be they must be considered innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. 

 

This is why I have problems with media discussing ad nauseum any charges against someone.  In the interest of scooping the juicy stories so many "facts" go unchecked nowadays.

 

[.Michelle.]

Full retraction.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405

[PrincessMommy]

I've been reading about the full retraction, but honestly I don't get it why no one is losing their job.  This is such an important issue...and the negative repercussions toward victims is going to be devastating.  I realize that the journalist didn't actually lie, but she also didn't do her job properly and a lot of people have suffered.

[Bluegoat]

I've been reading about the full retraction, but honestly I don't get it why no one is losing their job.  This is such an important issue...and the negative repercussions toward victims is going to be devastating.  I realize that the journalist didn't actually lie, but she also didn't do her job properly and a lot of people have suffered.

 

My guess would be that it wasn'y just the journalist who made the call to go about it in that way.  At the very least, there would have been one editor looking at what she did.  And my impression has been that there was actually a concious decision to treat the story that way.

 

I think it was a bad decision, and we can all see why now, but it stems from a kind of wider cultural confusion about rape complaints.  There is a group that argues that all rape complaints should be believed as a matter of course and that asking questions is a way of re-traumatizing the victim and shows hatred for women.  I think TRS believed these people, who after all are commentators who say they speak for women, and so you get this kind of problem.  The assumption is that the story is the truth or close enough and that honouring the women who tells the story means taking it at face value.  IIRC Jessica Valenti, who is a pretty widely read feminist, was still supporting this approach in this case even after it beame clear there were problems, and has said in many of her articles that women simply don't lie about rape.  Its a particular set of beliefs about rape that mean people look at every actual event through a very distorted glass IMO.

[Word Nerd]

I've been reading about the full retraction, but honestly I don't get it why no one is losing their job.  This is such an important issue...and the negative repercussions toward victims is going to be devastating.  I realize that the journalist didn't actually lie, but she also didn't do her job properly and a lot of people have suffered.

 

I am also surprised that no one was fired. Rolling Stone isn't even going to overhaul how they report and edit stories. Multiple people failed to do their jobs correctly all along the way. From The Columbia School of Journalism's review, as quoted by Poynter:

 

"The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all."

[SKL]

Will there be a boycott if there isn't a firing?

[MBM]

What disturbs me is that when this article came out, many people didn't question the account. Even here on these boards.

 

When an account is printed in media, even if the information is later found to be flawed and a correction is printed, humans tend to keep believing the first account even after having read the correction. Robert Cialdini talks about this in his book Influence: Science and Practice. Very disturbing.

 

 

[gardenmom5]

I would assume RS would not post a retraction unless there is SOLID evidence that it didn't happen.

 

I got flamed in the Bill Cosby thread but this is why there must be proof of a crime other than "she said".

 RS published a story based upon ONE PERSON's account without doing any fact checking. like - did the frat have a party on the weekend in question? no.  (when that tidbit came out - RS covered her by saying she got the frats confused and it was really a different one.) did the person she claim to attend the party with exist?  even outside the school  - they can't find records of the person. did her friends who she went to for help at the time back up her version?  NO.

 

there are nearly 30 women who claim to have been drugged and raped by BC  - so it's hardly the same. especially when there is evidence they did actually meet at the times in question.

[Reefgazer]

Cosby and RS share the common thread of there is no physical evidence of any crime, nor any corroboration of each individual's claim.

RS published a story based upon ONE PERSON's account without doing any fact checking. like - did the frat have a party on the weekend in question? no. did the person she claim to attend the party with exist? even outside the school - they can't find records of the person. did her friends who she went to for help at the time back up her version? NO.

 

there are nearly 30 women who claim to have been drugged and raped by BC - so it's hardly the same. especially when there is evidence they did actually meet at the times in question.

[Word Nerd]

What disturbs me is that when this article came out, many people didn't question the account. Even here on these boards.

 

I'd wager that's still the case. 

[gardenmom5]

Cosby and RS share the common thread of there is no physical evidence of any crime, nor any corroboration of each individual's claim.

in cosby's case - there are 30 women making claims that they can prove they actually met.

 

in the other's case - there is one person who claimed to be at party that never happened.  (at least on the date she claimed) then she claimed maybe it was a different frat. (without giving the name of the "new" frat.)

 

there is a difference.

[Guest]

in cosby's case - there are 30 women making claims that they can prove they actually met.

 

in the other's case - there is one person who claimed to be at party that never happened.  (at least on the date she claimed) then she claimed maybe it was a different frat. (without giving the name of the "new" frat.)

 

there is a difference.

I agree that proof that they met is a good thing toward conviction.

 

I reject the idea that 30 or 50 or 100 women coming forward is proof of anything.  I've read enough in the media, I could come up with a pretty convincing story about the time BC assaulted me. 

[swimmermom3]

What disturbs me is that when this article came out, many people didn't question the account. Even here on these boards.

 

When an account is printed in media, even if the information is later found to be flawed and a correction is printed, humans tend to keep believing the first account even after having read the correction. Robert Cialdini talks about this in his book Influence: Science and Practice. Very disturbing.

 

In some ways, it's a Catch 22 situation.  As a culture, we have a long-standing practice of discounting the stories of victims of rape, pedophilia, and domestic abuse. Believing those stories is a relatively new practice (as in only a generation or so).  Now, it's hard for us to find the balance and a lazy mainstream (I include FOX) media doesn't help. Why should they when over and over in the past few years, the politicians we have elected to represent us have repeatedly said in the media, "Facts don't matter."

 

We are addicted to sensationalism and emotional outrage and it's easier and cheaper  for media to cater to those aspects then it is to fact check and then shelve a story that didn't pan out.  For those of you that are outraged at Rolling Stone's carelessness (and you should be), then I hope you were equally outraged by Fox's Muslim "No Go Zones" and similar stories.

[MBM]

In some ways, it's a Catch 22 situation.  As a culture, we have a long-standing practice of discounting the stories of victims of rape, pedophilia, and domestic abuse. Believing those stories is a relatively new practice (as in only a generation or so).  Now, it's hard for us to find the balance and a lazy mainstream (I include FOX) media doesn't help. Why should they when over and over in the past few years, the politicians we have elected to represent us have repeatedly said in the media, "Facts don't matter."

 

We are addicted to sensationalism and emotional outrage and it's easier and cheaper  for media to cater to those aspects then it is to fact check and then shelve a story that didn't pan out.  For those of you that are outraged at Rolling Stone's carelessness (and you should be), then I hope you were equally outraged by Fox's Muslim "No Go Zones" and similar stories.

 

Besides lazy, I would also say that occasionally media can be self-serving, purposely misleading and malicious, too. For example, we have friends who've lived in the Middle East for years who've told us about events they witnessed that were wildly slanted in the media, downright falsely reported actually. It's very difficult to know what is really true in journalism, and that is why a reader -- especially one who claims to be a critical thinker -- must be patient and question what is written instead of reacting.