There are two separate controversies this week over rape stories that have been challenged by critics. Both stories involve leading U.S. universities. Unlike the Duke Lacrosse controversy, neither school is accused of wrongdoing. Rolling Stone magazine has apologized for shocking failures in reporting a sensational rape story where a woman named Jackie alleged that she was gang raped at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house, but the Washington Post reported on discrepancies in the account, including the fact that no party was held at the fraternity on the day in question. In the meantime, Lena Dunham’s story of being raped in college has been challenged as containing discrepancies and the man who has faced the most accusations is now considering a libel lawsuit against the author and director.
The Rolling Stone Controversy
Rolling Stone magazine ran the story containing detailed accounts of the rape of Jackie, but it agreed to a demand by the alleged victim not to interview with accused man. It was an astonishing lapse of journalistic principles and the magazine also failed to fully investigate the details of the alleged rape. Notably, however, the magazine issued an apology but then removed this line: “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.” That line was replaced with this line “These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.”
The story “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, discussed how Jackie was a freshman in 2012 when she was forced to perform oral sex by seven men at the prestigious Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. Various people raised questions over the reporting, including the fact that some of Jackie’s closest friends questioned her account despite Erdely’s insistence that her friends’ accounts were “consistent” with her story. These inconsistencies include Jackie’s initial claim, according to friends and the Washington Post, that she had been raped by 5 men and then later claiming it was 7. Other friends said that there was an absence of any physical injury despite the claim of the magazine that she emerged bloodied and battered. The fraternity also said that there was no party on the day identified by Jackie and that her identification of “Drew” did not match anyone at the house and that in conflict with her claims, no one at the house worked as lifeguards at the pool. One of the named attackers was from a different house and no one by his name is a member at the Phi Kappa Psi. The man named said that he never met Jackie.
The fact that the magazine agreed not to interview the accused was widely condemned. The magazine stated that “[b]ecause of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.” A Rolling Stone editor claimed that it could not reach some of the men, though others including the Post were able to do so.
The Post details clearly identified individuals who were never contacted by the magazine. The Post reported that the person identified in the Rolling Stone story as “Cindy” told it that Erdely’s version of events was “completely false.”
The story of the brutal rape is still available on the Internet with the addition of the apology.
The Lena Dunham Controversy
A man named “Barry” is reportedly considering a libel lawsuit against Lena Dunham for her account of being raped at Oberlin College. She supplied details of the rape by a “mustachioed campus Republican” named Barry. Dunham’s widely acclaimed memoir, Not That Kind of Girl, included an identification of Barry as the rapist and describes him as a 19-year-old student who was known as a “poor loser” at poker with a flamboyant mustache who worked at the campus library and hosted a radio talk show. She also stated that Barry was the “campus’s resident conservative.”
The seemed to reduce the suspects to one man named Barry who was on the campus at the time and named Barry who claims that he has been hounded by the allegation that he is a rapist and that Dunham has refused to speak with him or clear his name.
Dunham’s high visibility has made the rape allegation international news and that has magnified the alleged injury to Barry. She received a $3.7 million advance for the memoir and is a leading producer, writer, and director, including her celebrated work on on the HBO series Girls.
Dunham not only claims that Barry raped her but gives highly graphic details of the encounter. She also quotes a friend who said that after she “once her friend Julia woke up the morning after sex with Barry, and the wall was spattered with blood. Spattered, she said, “like a crime scene.” But he was nice and took her for the morning-after pill and named the baby they weren’t having.”
The conservative website Breitbart has investigated the claims and identified what it says are clear discrepancies. The Washington Post blog has said that those discrepancies offer a solid basis for a libel action.
It is difficult to judge the merits of the claim. However, a libel lawsuit could force a response from Dunham and discovery into her account. Such an action could be based on not just libel but false light. The latter tort is defined
in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 652E as:
(1) the portrayal must be found to be “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and
(2) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
The risk for Dunham is that there may be enough details — and alleged discrepancies — to get such a case to discovery and possibly trial. Discovery could result in depositions of an array of acquaintances and Dunham herself under oath. “Barry” has reportedly set up a donation site to pay for “costs and related fees associated with defending Barry’s reputation including, but not limited to, potentially pursuing Lena Dunham and Penguin Random House for harm caused to Barry’s reputation from the publication and sale of Ms. Dunham’s memoir.”
Inga, her story is fake. You are the one who should “feel bad” about wantonly judging young men guilty of something they did not do.
Inga:
“Only “absurd” because it reflects badly on you. Truth hurts.”
Oh, really, how so? I am commenting about the topic of Professor Turley’s blog post. It seems like a pretty obvious conclusion that false allegations of rape are horrible. How does this reflect badly on me? Do you have a problem with frat boys? Because I don’t think any man deserves to be falsely accused of raping someone in a blood bath.
Your point seems to be that you’re outraged that we are all commenting about the topic of this thread instead of about police brutality. But there are plenty of threads about police misconduct.
Why don’t you take it up with the blog host that you dislike his topics? Or perhaps start your own. Then you can decide what people are allowed to talk about.
Mike A:
Doesn’t this sound contradictory to you?
Here’s what we know: Rolling Stone committed the worst kind of journalistic sin.
Here’s what we don’t know: what actually happened to this young woman.
Both can’t be true. If we know that RS did a bad thing, then we must know that what the young woman said wasn’t true, otherwise how could we judge that RS did a bad thing by reporting it?
Meanwhile Haz you were the leader here is yelling that her story was a fake. Does that make you feel good about yourself? It should not.
Inga – Jackie’s story, as told by Rolling Stone, is inaccurate. That we know. So, what is your problem?
Rolling Stone backed off and said its not about Jackie’s errors, it’s about THEIR OWN MISTAKES in reporting.
Right. Their mistake was that their reporter believed what Jackie said without verifying it. They bought the story as it was told, hook, line, and sinker.
Rolling Stone backed off because of the two targets for a lawsuit, the magazine and Jackie, the magazine has the deep pockets and will be creamed in a lawsuit.
Here’s what we know: Rolling Stone committed the worst kind of journalistic sin.
Here’s what we don’t know: what actually happened to this young woman.
Nonetheless, people have managed to gin up over 200 comments based almost solely upon anger and speculation.
Only “absurd” because it reflects badly on you. Truth hurts.
Is Rolling Stone still saying that Jackie was raped, but she got every single one of the details wrong? Or are they saying that college rape is a real problem, but they should have picked a legitimate victim?
Rape is a problem any time you have young people getting together, with alcohol. It’s not because it’s college that there are rapes; it’s partying and alcohol. When I went to frat parties, the rule was us girls watched out for each other, didn’t let anyone get separated, and above all, don’t drink the punch. It’s like 90 proof disguised as juice.
Karen – ASU has 65000 students. If roughly half of them are women that is 30,000 women. If one in four is raped on campus that is 1200 rapes a year. ASU had 43 reported rapes last year.
Whenever Professor Turley writes about legitimate police wrongdoing, there is sincere outrage on the blog, and sympathy for the victims.
So it’s a spurious argument that we cannot feel sorry for frat boys wrongfully accused of a vicious gang rape, because there is no empathy for victims of police brutality.
What an absurd thing to say! Scolding people for talking about the topic of a thread instead of spontaneously changing topics to a 12 year old who was pretending to shoot people with a realistic-looking toy gun. The orange cap had been removed and it looked real. And when a cop showed up, he pointed it at the cop. Who does that??? And the rookie cop shot him. Horrible, awful, preventable tragedy. I’m a military brat who’s grown up with guns. We have firearms now. I would never give my child a realistic gun to play with. The rule is he can play with water pistols as long as they’re brightly colored. There are no realistic looking toy guns allowed for this exact reason. Why desensitize a child to pointing guns that look real at people?
Rolling Stone backed off and said its not about Jackie’s errors, it’s about THEIR OWN MISTAKES in reporting.
This story is not about “college rapes”. Stop trying to change it. It is about the article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely and published in the Rolling Stone. In her article, Ederly reports the story of an alleged rape at UVA told by one woman – called Jackie – and says Jackie’s story is true and accurate.
It wasn’t and isn’t. Rolling Stone has admitted as much.
http://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/bad-reporting-doesn-t-negate-college-rapes/article_a89cf5fa-7f78-11e4-a985-d72319611147.html?mode=jqm
Bad reporting doesn’t negate college rapes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865965/My-daughter-told-truth-Father-girl-center-University-Virginia-gang-rape-storm-defends-20-year-old-saying-raped-simply-mistake-fraternity-attack-happened.html
Father of Jackie defends his daughter.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/who-is-jackie-rolling-stone-rape-story
Who is Jackie?
There is this The story is a fake because the details seem implausible? Rush to conclusion.
And then this Why not withold (sic) judgement until the facts are in evidence?
So am I. A made-up story. A story that was never fact checked before it was published.
Jet, you’re building a case on complete conjecture. Why not withold judgement until the facts are in evidence?
Inga – enough of the facts are out to change the story. Enough that both Rolling Stone and Lena Denham’s editor have backed away from the original story. Isn’t that enough for you? Progressive newspapers all over the country are playing CYA over this and you want to wait for more facts?
BTW, which sorority did you try to pledge that they turned you down? I see sour grapes.
I am referring to Jackie’s story.
The story is fake because there is no factual evidence that supports it. None. The author did not interview anyone who was at the alleged event. She did not confront others who were there. There is no police report, campus or local police. The woman about whom the story was written has changed her story several times, or “can’t remember” things she previously said were true.
Let’s say I have an axe to grind about nurses. I write a story about a nurse who I say has committed sexual assaults on patients in XYZ hospital while she was on duty. I give enough hints that the nurse can be identified. But I offer no proof – no police reports, no reports from hospital security, no interviews with patients, nothing. I write my story carefully and well, and it gets published in a publication that likewise has an axe to grind with nurses. A nurses’ life is utterly ruined by false allegations.
Really, who cares about one nurse, when the bigger problem is nurses generally? Everyone knows that. So, no harm. It was done to advance an important cause. Guilty as charged! Screw due process! Maybe this will actually do some good, as the accused nurse, even though probably innocent, will be able to take time to ask herself why she could even think of such a thing?
Implausible? Not really. It is happening. It happened before at Duke. Entirely plausible.
Which story are you referring? Both are fake and therefore implausible.