I was a bit taken aback by the way Jon Stewart summed it up by condemning Rolling Stone for “setting back the cause” but not for falsely accusing a bunch of men for a crime they didn’t committ.
This is one of the points I made before— no actual person was accused of rape.
If I’m in a room with ten people, and there is an accusation that seven of us are rapists, how much does it matter that nobody specifically points at me? Particularly, when the other three of us are simply accused of looking the other way or facilitating during said rape. A significant enough percentage of a small organization was accused directly or indirectly that they were all labeled as rapists.
Further, nicknames for specific fraternity members (“Armpit” and “Blanket”) were named in the story. If those are real nicknames for people falsely accused, then those are identifiable individuals.
At this point, I think it can be pretty safely assumed that none of the frat brothers described in Jackie’s account are factual descriptions of real people.
IIRC, she provided her friends with pictures of “Haven Monahan” that turned out to belong to an old high school buddy, so he could potentially have grounds to accuse her of libeling him, but I don’t think there were any other specific identifiable individuals she accused of raping her.
Whether that organization was small enough such that every member would automatically be identified specifically as a rapist or someone who facilitated the rape is actually an unsettled question.
Sure, but the story has been out for months and I have not yet heard anyone say that those were anyone’s actual nicknames. This is still just an “if.”
She directly accused every single member of being a rapist:
“When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. “Grab its motherfucking leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped. She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement. As the last man sank onto her, Jackie was startled to recognize him: He attended her tiny anthropology discussion group. He looked like he was going to cry or puke as he told the crowd he couldn’t get it up. “Pussy!” the other men jeered. “What, she’s not hot enough for you?” Then they egged him on: “Don’t you want to be a brother?” "We all had to do it, so you do, too.”“”
Italics/bolding mine. She portrayed rape as a requirement for fraternity membership. Therefore every single member is a rapist. Which is exactly how the public took it when they decided to graffiti the house and accuse all the members of being rapists.
Not to mention that one of the members being not only a fraternity member but a member of a specific “tiny anthropology discussion group” makes it pretty likely that person can be identified.
According to The Cause, there can be no such thing as a false rape accusation.
You’re right but a whole group men were suspected of it :
These men were branded as ruthless misogynists and predatory gang rapists, of such derelict character that they would violate their victim with a beer bottle. Seven men allegedly carried out the rape against “Jackie,” the central figure in the Rolling Stone report, but all of the members of Phi Kappa Psi were immediately made suspects. Their house was vandalized, the windows broken, and they were ostracized on campus.* link
Still tap dancing, I see. Why don’t you make a declarative statement about what would be the correct action to direct at Erdeley and the editor she worked most closely with.
How about for fabricating quotes that support their (unchecked) stories? From this article:
It’s clear from this that, in addition to astonishingly sloppy reporting, Erdely engaged in deliberate fabrication.
Well, at least he would have enough sense to hide the television when the investigators came to question him.
Looking through her past stories, she sure has a story type. Single individual stories with anonymous impossible to confirm sources. I have little doubt that the most cursory analysis will find her to be another Jayson Blair.
Wow.
Yeah, I’d like to see her - or anyone - try to use *that line as a legal defense. And the courts are far more forgiving and technically-minded than the public. What she did was grossly and knowingly dishonest, with at best malicious disregard for the truth, threw away only the flimsiest of possible excuses, and explicitly targeted people were appear to be entirely innocent. Rolling Stone, in this case, used only the thinnest of fig leaves to cover their shame.
In fact, it now appears that not only the particularly memorable story of “Jackie”, but the entire “culture of rape” that Erdley claimed and spent so much of her article on, was completely fabricated. If that’s not libel, I’m not sure what would be. At this point, it’s almost certain that even a public figure could (and likely would succeed at) suing her and *Rolling Stone *for libel, and private figures most certainly could.
If she fabricated quotes then that’s a completely different story. That’s not what I read in the initial stories about the CJR report. If anyone else at the publication knew that quotes had been fabricated and still allowed it to go to press then they also bear responsibility. If someone shows that this is a Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass type situation, then I would not forgive.
That seems most unlikely - a writer who fabricates a quote would presumably never tell an editor or publisher “I cleverly stuck in some fake but juicy bits to make the story even more appealing.”
Unlikely, yes. But if that had been the case. It’s not impossible.
Dude, don’t defend this woman. She’s either evil, crazy, or possessed of VERY poor judgement, and NONE of those are acceptable in someone whose work can cause the kind of mess that this story has.
She deserves to lose her life’s savings in a lawsuit and never get to work in journalism again. False accusations of rape are one thing…but PUBLISHING them knowingly just has no upside for anyone, anywhere.
Not one word I said can fairly be characterized as defending her. However, I don’t consider it proven that she has knowingly published false accusations of rape. That might yet happen, but as of now, I don’t consider it a settled matter.
Why are you seemingly hell bent on busting these people? It’s weird and smacks big time of a witch hunt on your part. A substantial part of this thread has proven you wrong at every turn yet here you still are trying to make people who are are objectively innocent be guilty.
Do you have special info we lack?
The police did a five month investigation.
They found no evidence (read that again) that a rape occurred in this case. Not just at the place specified but nowhere on that campus (as regards the people in question in this thread).
Add to that the media descending on this one like hawks thus making hard to think the truth won’t be found.
So yeah, in every way important it is settled. Only in your recalcitrant mind is it otherwise.
It really smacks of an agenda you possess. You will push that agenda at all costs utterly regardless of the facts.
She appears to have a history of less-than-strictly-factual reporting on rape besides the UVA story, for one thing. For another, she never apologized to the fraternity.
Yeah, she’s a knowing liar. I’m disgusted, bewildered, saddened, and offended.