<p>
</p>
<p>A story was printed in your magazine and you don’t know if it is true or not?</p>
<p>And if you don’t know what happened, why are you throwing Jackie under the bus?</p>
<p>I think he just admitted to negligence. </p>
<p>RS stone didn’t throw Jackie under the bus because it’s Jackie’s story - right now they are both under the bus. Presumably the reporter has notes and/or recording and if not now is time for Jackie’s lawyer to speak up and say what RS reported that deviated from what Jackie said. I’m afraid the court of national media is much crueler than criminal court. Jackie’s parents should have made sure she had a lawyer right there with her before she opened her mouth. </p>
<p>I haven’t followed this story at all - but on my way to pick up H at the airport I had NPR on and they were discussing this story. The reporter being interviewed said RS should never have published the story given that they agreed to Jackie’s request not to have the date interviewed. The reporter said, at the very least, RS should have disclosed that information to the readers. </p>
<p>He didn’t, OTOH, dismiss the article completely and said it is a fact that UVA’s treatment , or lack thereof, of how the deal with rape cases, has been under investigation since well before this article and Jackie’s story came out. But he said her story should have never been the centerpiece of the article. </p>
<p><a href=“A Note to Our Readers – Rolling Stone”>http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205</a></p>
<p>If Jackie asked the Rolling Stone not to publish, and they published anyway without checking the story, seems to me she is off the hook.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is where Jackie was thrown under the bus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then Mr Dana says he doesn’t know who is telling the truth? </p>
<p>Who interviews with a major magazine, and then asks not to publish? If you don’t want them to publish, don’t give the interview.</p>
<p>If Jackie is not on the up and up, it is still slander on her part because the journalist has it on record, i.e., Jackie may have slandered others to the journalist (and maybe to others as well). RR would not have a story unless Jackie told it. Whether RR printed without her permission becomes irrelevant if the story is really fabricated or seriously embellished because her story still harmed people who might have done no wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I am far from being a defender of RS’s journalistic standards, I would point out that the reporter could have tried to get information from the school regarding employment records n iconic first joband from the fraternity she was accusing regarding members, and they could have refused to cooperate. In fact, that is at least implied by her “explanation,” although she doesn’t make it sound as if she tried very hard. Once RS published the article, everyone suddenly had a motivation to be cooperative with the WaPo.</p>
<p>But even if this was the case, they were working to shoddy standards. Responsible journalists and publications insert caveats about not having been able to get a response from X by publication time, even if it spoils the flow. If they really need corroboration, they don’t publish until they get it. (Apparently there is a reason why working as a fact-checker at The New Yorker is an iconic first job, but not at RS…) </p>
<p>If Jackie actually <em>told</em> the reporter that she knew which house it was only because a friend pointed it out, the reporter would have to be nuts not to pursue the matter to make sure that really was the house before accusing them of harboring rapists. But maybe Jackie didn’t tell her that. Maybe she only came forth with that tidbit when being questioned by the WaPo.</p>
<p>Jackie said she was sober when the attack occurred. How could she not remember the house?</p>
<p>RS doesn’t need to know who is telling the truth. They can do a he said, she said story if that’s what they want to do. But, they didn’t. The fact/fiction muddling of this story with specific criminal allegations against real parties that exist which is mostly the frat right now because drew seems not to be real either is the problem. And, the school also has been wrongly painted as a rape hub, too. And, the lame attempt at trying to fact-check or get responses from those accused of wrongdoing is beyond lazy and really indefensible in this kind of story. But, the writer wrote the story she wanted to write. Jackie and the truth were incidental.</p>
<p>Hanna, fraternities at Uva do sometimes rush upperclassmen in the fall, and some “dirty rush” freshman in the fall however pledging activities only happen in the spring. Meaning anyone rushed in the fall would wait and join the freshman pledge class in the spring. Initiating pledges is a large time commitment, it only happens once per year. Per my son. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The writer was feeling euphoric last week. Now…probably not so much. </p>
<p>RS doesn’t have to know the truth but when they say their trust was misplaced…</p>
<p>“If Jackie asked the Rolling Stone not to publish, and they published anyway without checking the story, seems to me she is off the hook.”</p>
<p>Did she ask them not to publish? </p>
<p>I was under the impression from the report I heard on NPR that she only asked RS not to interview the guy. </p>
<p>This whole things proves an interesting dichotomy. A rape allegation - the more lurid the better - almost always gets instant acceptance in the court of public opinion. On the other hand, in the real judicial system it has a high bar that seems unsurmountable. Neither, of course, are ideal, but I wonder if the two are related, with one influencing the other.</p>
<p>RS is blaming Jackie right now but that isn’t going to work. And, yeah she started freaking out when the ball started rolling but it didn’t stop. And, once she talks to the reporter the reporter can use what she says but she can’t make up stuff and embellish and call if fact if it isn’t. That appears to be what happened here.</p>
<p>I was thinking about this and perhaps Jackie “changed” some facts to protect herself or to perceive to protect herself and the others, but this is exactly why colleges, universities and the national media should NOT be trying sexual misconduct. These are serious charges and require due diligence, due process and thorough investigation. We might have problems with our police and their procedures but goodness having all these travesty stories told second-hand do not advance what women really seem to want. The two leading stories about sexual assault this week were Swarthmore backing down and RS sensationalism then oopsy. They actually do the opposite and people just start not believing anything. it’s really so sad and heading in the direction I feared it would head. Women just need to say loud and clear that they want police to investigate, that they want criminal prosecution, that they don’t want their voices negated - they want their stories investigated and resolved in through due process. They need to unite all these feminist factions from the hyper offensive to the quietly analytical, but like MADD managed to do and to some extent Gloria Steinam was able to do with Ms. Magazine. I really believe they could affect change. Right now it’s just a cacophony with no focus and factions that are really alienating to other women and men and alot of really, really bad media coverage. </p>
<p>This article brought an important issue to the fore, and there’s no question UVA expelled more people for lying than for raping (even if they admitted they did). The way universities deal with rape is part of the problem and thus, going forward, the way universities (and police officers) are going to deal with college students getting raped is part of the solution.
As for Jackie, I thought she was a composite, but it didn’t affect my reading since it was clearly an “issue” piece with sensational details added to make readers react since stern articles don’t impact much/as much (it does affect how one reacts to RS’ retractation!) There’s no doubt there are rapes in fraternities and on campuses. Young women other than Jackie have come forward for UVA alone. There’s no doubt universities have dealt with rape in a terrible manner and that the “fake courts” at universities shouldn’t handle felonies.
To the issue, the fact it was fraternity X, Y or Z doesn’t matter - it does matter to real people that they were named and possibly/likely wrongly accused. Those are two different planes (just like institutions and individuals are.)
Note the fact there was no official party on that date doesn’t mean there was no party at the house; the fact a young man from the fraternity said his name was “Drew” and he was a lifeguard may mean the young man lied to Jackie as to his name/function/status, and in fact the young man may not even have been part of the fraternity but have had friends there. Jackie could have been raped at another fraternity (for most “independent” kids, all the Greek letters look the same, even basic stuff like phi vs.psi, or omega v. delta.)
So, RS did a shoddy job - I understand not interviewing the brothers who had lawyered up though, as they wouldn’t have wanted to talk as is their legitimate right; not checking other facts makes no sense professionally, if some turn up as needing checks, and I hope that their shoddy reporting will not hurt the cause they wanted to defend. RS lost their professional credibility but the problem they wrote about remains.
To me, this article happened to “hit the right notes” to open a conversation, (now, we know, was manufactured to hit the right notes…) and that’s why it was so talked about. Embellishments, falsifications, lies by the author don’t change the fact there is a serious problem at UVA and that the university can choose to be at the forefront of change when it comes to rape on campus, or can choose to use the shoddy journalism work as a pretext to overlook the real problem.</p>
<p>Anyone suing RS would have to prove malicious intent. There is no law suit to be had here because no one can prove the rape happened or didn’t happen. </p>