I just reviewed this thread and man.. what a great thread. You never realize how good the discussions we have here get at the time. Bravo to everyone.

I quoted the above though, not to really pick on SOM, who is a great contributor, but just to highlight some of the pants-shitting which goes in the media. The Jackie case didn't set back the rape dialogue one iota. What it did highlight was that we, the media included, need to take a step back, wait for both sides to come out and not to immediately rush to the conclusion that the sky is falling.

Rolling Stone Apologizes, Retracts UVA Rape Article After CJR Review

http://abcnews.go.com/US/rolling-sto...ry?id=30111150

I hope that Phi Psi at UVA and Phi Psi national goes forward with a lawsuit against Rolling Stone. Their reputation was so badly damaged by this irresponsible story. They could probably use a new house.

President Sullivan deserves to lose her job over this fiasco and her role in magnifying the insanity. She did not act in the best interests of the University community and the totality of its student body.

And here it is. I can't say I blame them either.

The University of Virginia fraternity chapter at the center of Rolling Stone magazine's retracted article "A Rape on Campus" said on Monday that it planned to sue the magazine for what it called "reckless" reporting that hurt its reputation.

http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-...001216264.html

Fraternities can sue. Sororities can sue.
At the end of the day, the larger issue is, and should remain, the damage done to women who are truly victims of sexual assault, whose credibility has taken a hit.

We could also address the ever so constant chipping away of the criminality of sexual assault and the lasting damage it does to those who survive such a crime?

Oh, rape? I mean, gosh, how bad can it be if women can assert its occurrence after every drunken Friday or Saturday night "hookup" or poorly made decision? Or worse yet, when some truly unfortunate yet mentally unstable female determines that it would be such an easy way to get attention and become a victim?

This is what makes me truly angry.

Here is a link to the Columbia School of Journalist report. It is a lengthy report. Quote from same:

"Rolling Stone's repudiation of the main narrative in "A Rape on Campus" is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine's editors to reconsider publishing Jackie's narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine's reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from."

I just watched the SVU on this, and they nailed it.

Interesting article in Esquire recently:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...-justice-case/

I don't understand why everyone involved in creating this mess is still employed by RS. As if anything they produce from now on will be taken seriously. They should at least do the honorable thing and resign but given all the publicity it'll probably be next to impossible for them to get another job in the profession (maybe the onion or another fake news site).

I couldn't agree more. I feel the easiest path to not only restore their reputation but more importantly to keep the focus on rape culture and survivors would be public apologies to the fraternity from RollingStone and a closed financial statement. That way the fallout is no longer the subject.

They could also fire the unethical screwups who let this happen.

As usual, Megan McArdle at Bloomingberg doesn't pull any punches in disecting the Rolling Stone hoax.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...pologize-right

The most interesting point she makes is one that I haven't seen brought up much, but is self-evidently true, and goes a long way towards explaining how activists and the media and the Obama Administration have been able to manufacture the narrative that we have a rape "crisis" on our college campuses.

"3. Privacy laws and the norms of survivor support groups created the illusion of institutional verification. Erdely first heard the story from Emily Renda, a rape survivor and alumna who now works on the issue at UVA. Renda mentioned the alleged attack in congressional testimony. Erdely seems to have assumed in some way that this meant the university had confirmed the attack. This impression was heightened by various privacy laws, which make it virtually impossible for the university to discuss specific cases. Erdely was operating under the assumption that the university knew this had happened and was stonewalling. In fact, Renda had the same information Erdely did: the story she heard from Jackie. The university did not have enough information to take action, but it also could not discuss these details with Erdely. The lack of disconfirmation seems to have been taken as positive proof that it happened, rather than what it was: a legal prohibition on sharing information."

This is true of most of the mainstream reporting we have seen in the last few years on individual "rape" cases and all of the handwringing reporting about Title IX investigations. The schools CAN'T comment, which gives those creating the narrative carte blanche to say whatever they want and the narrative will very likely not be challenged, even when the "facts" being reported are completely false.

Hoax? That's a loaded word. I haven't seen any evidence of a hoax, at least on RS's part. Fiasco, yes, but not hoax.

I don't think that's self-evident at all, unless it is also self-evident that no reporters will ever do enough homework to understand the basics of what they're reporting on.

Perhaps one day you'll let us know why you seem to have as much of an axe to grind on this issue as those you constantly accuse of manufacturing a rape crisis.

I'd use Janet Cooke as the guide here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke She knew Jimmy didn't exist.

Point taken. I definitely didn't make my use of that word clear. It was a hoax on Jackie's part, a fiasco (of their own making) on RS's part.

It has nothing to do with a reporter's homework or understanding the basics. The part that is self-evident is the extremely strict privacy laws that protect this particular subject matter (college sexual assault allegations) from being routinely fact-checked by journalists seeking the truth. The universities are routinely being accused of all manner of coverups, from indifference to gross negligence. A lot of people, given the comments on this thread, take this (and other myths, like the 1 in 4 statistic) as an established fact. Is it? Was UVA negligent in their handling of the Jackie hoax? They obviously have known much more of the facts from the beginning of the hoax and the fiasco. In other circumstances, they would have been able to speak out immediately upon publication of the RS article. They are not able to correct the journalistic record in sexual assault cases.

Wanting the facts reported instead of agenda-driven journalism is axe-grinding?