The Rolling Stone Magazine and it writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely (right), are facing yet another story detailing the astonishing lapses in journalistic ethics and practices related to its article about a rape on the University of Virginia campus. Among the most starting is a statement by Erdely that a key student would not speak with her about the rape out of loyalty to his fraternity. That student says that Erdely never contacted him and that he would have been more than willing to speak to her. As for the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, it confirmed that it did not host any registered social event the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012.
The story of a gang rape at the fraternity captivated the nation but soon began to fall apart as students came forward challenging the account of Erdely and the alleged victims called only “Jackie.” The Post has been in the lead on the story uncovering the shoddy journalistic practices, including an agreement with Jackie not to interview her alleged rapist.
The Post appears to have done all of the field interviews that Erdely did not and reinterviewed others. These include the three students — “Randall,” “Andy” and “Cindy” — who Jackie called to her side after the alleged rape. They all three say that the Rolling Stone’s account differed from their own accounts, even though this meeting was key to the article. The students say that Jackie had no visible blood or injuries. They encouraged her to call the police but she refused. The students were painted in the story as indifferent and uncaring to Jackie’s account, even though they say that they not only encouraged her to go to police but stayed with her during the night.
They, however, noted a myriad of discrepancies in her story and said that they were suspicious that night that the rape never occurred. They said the name she provided as that of her date did not match anyone at the university. Indeed University of Virginia officials confirmed to The Post that no one by that name has attended the school.
Even more curious were the photographs that were texted to one of Jackie’s friends showing her date that night. The pictures were actually of one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. The Post located that man who is now a junior at a university in another state and he confirmed that the photographs were of him and said “he barely knew Jackie and hasn’t been to Charlottesville for at least six years.”
Here is the amazing thing. “The friends said they were never contacted or interviewed by the pop culture magazine’s reporters or editors.”
Moreover, the article states that “information Jackie gave the three friends about one of her attackers, called ‘Drew’ in the magazine’s article, differ significantly from details she later told The Post, Rolling Stone and friends from sexual assault awareness groups on campus.”
According to Erdely, “Randall” refused to speak with her “citing his loyalty to his own frat.” However, Randall not only spoke to the Post but insisted “that he was never contacted by Rolling Stone and would have agreed to an interview.”
Jackie spoke of Drew, but he could not be located by her friends on campus and the picture was of a high school friend. The school investigated the name and identity and found no one who matched the description at the school. Randall showed the Post the emails forwarded to him from Jackie’s date and the Post showed them to the actual man in the picture. The Post confirmed that “his name does not match the one Jackie gave friends in 2012 and that this former high school student “never really spoke to her,” was never a University of Virginia student and has not even been in Charlottesville for over six years.
The Post also interviewed some of Jackie’s new friends who said that Jackie revealed a name of her main alleged attacker to them more recently. “That name was different from the name she gave Andy, Cindy and Randall that first night. All three said that they had never heard the second name before learning it from a reporter.”
So the Post investigated the second named man and found someone with a similar name. He was a lifeguard at the time of the attacks. However, he insisted that he had never met her in person and never taken her out on a date. He also said that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.
The silence of Erdely amidst this storm is surprising for a journalist. She was interviewed before the controversy and said that she has a “finely tuned B.S. detector” that helps her get a story right.
The contrast however in the level of detail and confirmation between the Rolling Stone and the Washington Post articles could not be more striking.
There also remains potential for liability here for the magazine, for Erdely, and for “Jackie.” As shown by the Post, the article (and later new name offered by Jackie) led to the suspicion of at least two men. One was actually shown in photographs as the freshman who alleged led Jackie to a gang rape. That could constitute defamation as well as false light. As actionable claims, the magazine, author, and alleged victim could find themselves in discovery and forced to answer many of these questions. While these men are not public figures, they would still be able to show, in my view, “reckless disregard” on the part of the magazine and Erdely if the Post account is accurate, particularly in agreeing not to interview the alleged rapist and falsely reporting that key figures would not speak to the magazine.
Source: Washington Post
Exactly Bailers. Why can’t people wait for the investigation to be completed?
That’s the real problem, and maybe you’re on the wrong side of it. Again.
The University of Virginia administration and faculty jumped on this story like Lassie trying to get Timmie out of a well. The presumed the males were all guilty, because they are…males…and for no other reason. Social organizations were closed down. The house the males lived in had its windows broken, an had picketers out front. They needed to pay for legal counsel. Some needed to undergo the costs or moving. And you can only imagine the social and classroom shunning the underwent.
So sure thing, by all means, proceed slowly and deliberately as regards the alleged victim and her ever-changing story. But how to the wrongly accused males get made whole again? No one gave a rat’s ass about waiting for an investigation before pillorying them, did they?
“Won’t they feel stupid if she was telling the truth?”
It is literally impossible that she was telling the truth, because her stories contradicted each other. They can’t all be true, by definition. Plus the salient facts have been proven false. For instance, the picture of her “date” was of a man who was in another state on the night in question. So, literally, she cannot possibly be telling the truth so far.
However, if, in the future, she DOES tell the truth, and makes a claim that is born out by facts, then that second claim will be judged separately on its own merits.
Is it possible this woman was an unethical activist, or had Munchausen?
Or perhaps she was flunking out and needed a good cover story in order to claim a mulligan.
“Bailers, if the young woman lied about being raped she should face charges, however the jumping to conclusions and then going about attempting to prove their “theory” of her “guilt” simply makes them appear to be victimizing a potential victim. True rape victims often don’t come forward precisely because of this type of behavior.”
People have remarked on the facts we have so far, namely that her story significantly changed, her friends saw no visible injuries on her, even though she claimed to have a battered face and covered with blood, and that all the salient facts of her story have proven false.
We are judging the facts that we have. I am also calling for a police investigation. As has been stated previously, if she makes a second claim with factual statements, then that claim will be judged on its own merits. This particular claim failed.
Inga:
“Exactly Bailers. Why can’t people wait for the investigation to be completed? And I did hear one is underway by law enforcement.”
Sorry, I just fell off my chair laughing. Shall we revisit the thread on Michael Brown, with me fruitlessly pleading to wait for an investigation? That would be a pro pos.
And I believe this has reached the threshold where the police need to interview “Jackie” and get to the bottom of this.
I visited my friend’s roommate at the hospital years ago after the most horrific rape imaginable. It is offensive to me that RS broke so many rules of journalism, did such shoddy work, when it’s quite easy to find legitimate survivors.
This debacle did a great disservice to the national conversation about sexual assault.
“She emerged to discover the Phi Psi party still surreally under way, but if anyone noticed the barefoot, disheveled girl hurrying down a side staircase, face beaten, dress spattered with blood, they said nothing.”
Wait, but ALL THREE of the friends who met her that same night said she had no visible injuries.
If you fall backwards through a glass table, with a man on top of you, and then are gang raped by 7 guys on top of glass shards, you are going to need stitches. If it wasn’t tempered, the glass would be like knife shards that could slice to the bone. If it was tempered, it would have blown up into small glass crumbles which would literally have to be dug surgically out of your skin.
There are “back issues”, meaning old issues, of Rolling Stone at our outhouse here at the marina. People will gladly use it when the toilet paper has run out. I am tempted to send some of the useful issues to the publisher in a cardboard box.
Stick your tongue out at The Rolling Stone.
Bob Dylan had it right:
How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone ?
DBQ – well, you were absolutely right to reserve rushing to believe this story.
A lot of us are getting rather jaded by the failures of the media to accurately report the news.
Is it possible this woman was an unethical activist, or had Munchausen?
I do believe the police needs to investigate the entire thing.
Barkin:
Few artists wrote lyrics like Dylan’s poetry. I actually like reading his lyrics more than listening to the actual music.
Today’s music lyrics seem so pointless, vapid, and shallow compared to lyrics that actually tell an interesting story.
The men who were accused should not only sue, but also get the services of an internet reputation firm to ensure that the correct story gets out there.
The Internet has a long memory. These allegations will be there when potential employers, dates, and friends look them up.
These are very troubling revelations. I worry about the damage this has done to real rape victims, and to those who appear to be falsely accused.
There really does seem to be a trend of downward sliding journalistic work ethic and integrity. How many times has the media whipped the populace into a furor over stories they got completely wrong?
Karen – I blame this sloppy work on journalism schools. In the olden days you worked your way up the ladder, starting with some small paper somewhere writing obits. Now they all want to be investigative reporters, not reporters.
I got the photo from the Reverand Al. He is on top of this stuff. From way back.
Well Darn!!
I didn’t want to post the photo again.
here is the link. ——-> without the http stuff in the front thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/23-1n006-tawana2-300×300.jpg?w=300
@ msjettexas
In Firefox if you hover your mouse over the photo the url comes up as
http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/23-1n006-tawana2-300×300.jpg?w=300
You also have the option to open the link in a new tab.
I’ve learned assuming only makes one thing.
Trooper York ~ Can you give us a source on this photograph you posted?
I actually do have a close friend named Trooper York. 🙂
@Inga ~ “Won’t they feel stupid if she was telling the truth?”
Answer = YES
IF = she is telling the truth.
BUT = I’m willing to take that chance.
I’ll be the first to apologize for thinking otherwise, if she comes out and states it in public and they actually arrest the perps.
@Daniel Frankovitch
“The people that said the photo from 2011 is Jackie have now issued a retraction because their ‘evidence’ was based on guessing and a lot of speculation. And unlike Rolling Stone, these people actually care if they get the story right or not.”
I said this;
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jackie (identified by other sites) is supposedly<<<<<<<<<<<<>>SUPPOSEDLY<<<<<<
Do you see the word actual?
Do you see the word factual?
Do you see the word is?
Or do I need to define SUPPOSEDLY for you?
Bailers, if the young woman lied about being raped she should face charges, however the jumping to conclusions and then going about attempting to prove their “theory” of her “guilt” simply makes them appear to be victimizing a potential victim. True rape victims often don’t come forward precisely because of this type of behavior. The crows of “See, we told you so!” are extremely premature. Won’t they feel stupid if she was telling the truth? I have said all along that all the facts weren’t yet known and to assign guilt to either side at this point was wrong.