[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by pinksequins

We don't know that it is all false, just that there were sufficient substantive inaccuracies to cause even valid elements to be called into question.

This. I guess I'm not understanding why everyone is now assuming that the entire story is false..?

Originally Posted by SOM

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, woman behind Rolling Stone’s explosive U-Va. alleged rape story http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...984_story.html

I think this is the real issue here, regardless of whether or not Jackie's story is true:

The story does take one journalistic shortcut. The alleged assault, described in graphic detail, is presented largely without traditional qualifiers, such as “according to Jackie” or “allegedly.” The absence of such attribution or qualification leaves the impression that the events in question are undisputed facts, rather than accusations. Erdely said, however, that her writing style makes it clear that the events are being told from Jackie’s point of view.

ETA:

#IStandWithJackie: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ent/?tid+sm_fb

Some of the Twitter posts in the link are exactly what I was thinking. What makes everyone automatically think that the fraternity isn't lying? Rape is traumatic; Jackie even said she couldn't see clearly in the room. Perhaps she couldn't remember the exact number of people who were there?

The fact that Rolling Stone completely backed away from the story is awful. They should have at least explained what had been called into question, instead of implying that Jackie was lying about the whole thing.