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.”
While I cannot say what happened that night, and I cannot prove the validity of every tiny aspect of her story to you, I can tell you that this story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme.
This right here is the problem. Jackie’s story was not vetted, proved or even in the least investigated. Instead the Rolling Stone hack reporter presented all of one side without any questions being asked. In the course of this….with NO proof of anything, people have been accused, likely falsely. An entire group of people, fraternities were punished and shut down. Individual people have had the finger of blame pointed at them. Perhaps ruining their academic opportunities an possibly even their careers.
So Jackie’s friends says….without any proof of anything. That Jackie’s story is not a lie, a hoax or a scheme. Perhaps that is true. If it is true, then there should be an investigation and the perpetrators punished.
What is wrong is to begin pillorying innocent people through the media. If it does turn out that Jackie didn’t remember exactly a horrible and made UP details or worse just made the whole thing up……it makes it even harder for real rapes to be reported and ruins the lives of innocent people.
For what? To advance an agenda? To sell papers? To get webpage clicks?
Elaine M ~ FYI, the name Emily Clark is also associated with a character on an ABC weekly series called ‘Revenge’. Strange isn’t it.
Elaine M ~ Her letter or claim is irrelevant because she wasn’t a witness. She cannot state facts to the case, only what the supposed victim told her, therefore it’s irrelevant or hearsay.
Paul >>> zedalis – you do have a problem with sticking to the point
I’ll take that on board, Paul. I apologize if I’ve ruined the continuity of the narrative.
A letter from a friend: Jackie’s story is not a hoax
By Emily Clark
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/blog/on-sexual-assault-letters-from-the-community/2014/12/a-letter-from-a-friend-jackies-story-is-not-a-hoax
Excerpt:
Fellow Wahoos,
My name is Emily, and I was Jackie’s suitemate first year. I am writing to you in regards to Rolling Stone’s recent statement of “misplaced trust” in Jackie. I feel this statement is backwards, as it seems it was Jackie who misplaced her trust in Rolling Stone.
I fully support Jackie, and I believe wholeheartedly that she went through a traumatizing sexual assault. I remember my first semester here, and I remember Jackie’s. Jackie came to UVA bright, happy and bubbly. She was kind, funny, outgoing, friendly, and a pleasant person to be around. That all notably changed by December 2012, and I wasn’t the only one who noticed. Our suite bonded that first semester and talked many times about the new troubles we were facing in college. Jackie never mentioned anything about her assault to us until much later. But I, as well as others, noticed Jackie becoming more and more withdrawn and depressed…
In December 2012, Jackie broke down. All of a sudden she was going home and none of us knew why. It was right before finals, and I couldn’t believe she was leaving. She was distraught, and only said she needed to go home. Her teachers had given her allowance to take her finals over break. At that point, we knew something big had happened. I didn’t know until this year with the publication of Rolling Stone’s article how bad that time was for her.
Sometime that year I remember her letting it slip to me that she had had a terrible experience at a party. I remember her telling me that multiple men had assaulted her at this party. She didn’t say anything more. It seemed that was all she’d allow herself to say. I wish I had done something sooner. I wish I had known how to help. But I applaud Jackie for telling her story, now two years later. It was a story that needed to be told.
However, the articles released in the past few days have been troubling to me, and the responses to them even more so. While I cannot say what happened that night, and I cannot prove the validity of every tiny aspect of her story to you, I can tell you that this story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme. Something terrible happened to Jackie at the hands of several men who have yet to receive any repercussions.
Jim22 >> “How about burn that rag on the rack!?”
I had quite a few distatseful images come to mind, one even involving the Spanish Inquisition, before I alighted on what must be your meaning: “Destroy all copies of Rolling Stone on the newstands”
Did I get it?
@Darren Smith . . . I see what you are saying but, the original author had made a call the last minute to as that her story not be run and they ran it anyway. So whom do we look at for responsibility here?
I did two stints as an on-air television news reporter intern for a CBS affiliate in a 100 market when I was in college. Our News Director always emphasized facts. The way I see this story, there were no facts. The reporter was already shopping for a “good rape” story to write about. I stand perplexed as why she didn’t check her story out before publication but she must have had doubts. You can protect your source, but you can’t protect your a$$, when it’s all a false story.
What’s worse Rolling Stone or The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that they have a hand in? It’s a race to the bottom.
Steve H. – “At some point, UVA, the fraternity and/or the students will bring a lawsuit against Rolling Stone. (How can I donate money to advance the lawsuit?) And a court will decide. If the decision goes in favor of Rolling Stone, maybe I’ll protest. Perhaps I’ll riot. “Burn this bitch down!!!!””
How about burn that rag on the rack!?
Paul >> Finally, a reasonable opinion that does not stray so far afield as to appear to be ‘tetched’. I agree with your opinions, all of them just as expressed, 100%.
@Steve H.. . . . . I’m laughing my a$$ off as I bow to your very astute response! Good one!
Inga >>> Exactly. A blog post that seemed to link two isolated cases of rape accusations was purposely transformed into an excuse to incorporate their entire galaxy of right-wing conspiracy theories, stand back and in a self-congratulatory tone say “See, I was right.”
Astonishing in it’s scope, confounding for it’s lack of focus and, ultimately, entirely antithetical to the real issue.
zedalis – you do have a problem with sticking to the point. You seem to wander over to some other point you want to make that has nothing to do with the original thread. Do you always do that on blogs? Or only this one?
I sometimes think that in a desire to hear what some folks want to hear, they simply make it up, or they don’t read carefully and grossly mischaracterize comments. We all do it, it’s human nature, but I’ve seen so much of this lately on this blog. Didn’t used to be so often.
Inga – I have noticed you have taken to pontificating more and commenting less. The time they are a’changin’.
SH >>> I beg to differ, your characterization of my comments as “defending the Rolling Stone” could not be further from the truth. A quote might help your assumption?
Just sat back in my chair and realized something startling ….
The Univ of Virginia, one of its fraternities, and scores of innocent young college students were wrongly accused in the national media for a vicious crime that likely never happened.
Where is the liberal outrage for the victims of a system (i.e., the press) that has such deeply embedded biases (perhaps hatred) against a whole class of citizens? By quietly condoning (or in the case of Zedalis, defending) the actions of the Rolling Stone and its mimics like ABC News, Time, NY Times, the liberals again are guilty of “situational ethics”. (Wherein one’s ethical views depend on the situation; one may hate the police because they occasionally abuse their power but if the media abuses its power to advance an agenda one agrees with, well one can overlook that.)
At some point, UVA, the fraternity and/or the students will bring a lawsuit against Rolling Stone. (How can I donate money to advance the lawsuit?) And a court will decide. If the decision goes in favor of Rolling Stone, maybe I’ll protest. Perhaps I’ll riot. “Burn this bitch down!!!!”
By quietly condoning (or in the case of Zedalis, defending) the actions of the Rolling Stone and its mimics like ABC News, Time, NY Times, the liberals again are guilty of “situational ethics”.
I don’t see the post but it was in my email. I do not recall even one poster here condoning the rolling stone article. Again, it is just paint “the other side” with a broad brush and the facts be darned.
The way this thread is gone is a microcosm of what our society has become. calling names, insulting the “other side”, turning a deaf ear to anything that might not fit your “facts”. Could you imagine if just even for a moment those who call liberals names and those who call conservatives names actually read what has been written and took some time to see if maybe both sides have some legitimate points and maybe there is a middle somewhere. not just I’m right, you’re not and a (put your word here) liberal (or conservative although I seem to see names being thrown and negative adjectives used when the word “liberal” is attached, not so much conservative.
Groty – Arizona State University has a co-ed masturbation club. It appears it is only a club sport and not inter-collegiate so no scholarships are available.
leejcaroll – when I was in graduate school we learned to trust Rolling Stone only for the entertainment reviews.
leejcaroll – “On the other hand used to be you could trust Rolling Stone.”
Still laughing at this one.
Inga – “War on Men, War on White People, War on Christians. Oh! Don’t forget the war on Christmas, but that could be a subset of the War on Christians. False accusations happen with all manner of crime.”
You forgot the “war on women and war on gays” in your list. Oh, wait, you believe in those so those wars are true. Got it.
Nice try Zedalis.
There’s a long trail of lefties on this blog that have used your version of “Show me overwhelming data that proves your point”.
“What !?!?! You only quoted Rolling Stone Magazine, Time Magazine, and NY Times?!?!? Where’s your data?????”
Well, if you bothered to pull your head out of lefty blogs you would have seen that The Rolling Stone false accusations were run on ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NBC News.
When the lefties ask for more data, I know they’re stumped.
Aridog, that ” Grunty little malebeast” meme is actually Squeeky’s. I can’t take credit away from her.