Quote:
Originally Posted by OPhiAGinger
This story popped up on NPR today. Apparently the RS author is being criticized because she deliberately did not seek comment from the alleged coordinator ("Drew") of the date rape. The author explained that "Jackie" begged the author not to contact "Drew". Realizing how emotionally fragile "Jackie" still was even two years after the incident, the author and her editor decided to abide by Jackie's request. The criticism focuses on the fact that she did not disclose that decision in the RS article.
Thoughts?
|
Richard Bradley has had the most extensive and in-depth coverage of the journalistic sub-story to the Rolling Stone story. His latest is quite interesting.
http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/
The Washington Post, Hanna Rosin at Slate, Reason, and the New Republic are also covering. Hanna Rosin also has a podcast interview with the RS author.
When I first read the story, it struck me as improbable as it was presented. Not impossible, but improbable. The journalistic shortcuts and ensuing reaction of RS to criticism only add to that improbability. I would like to think that there are some missing facts that make the situation much more complicated/ambiguous, rather than an outright fabrication (ala Duke). IF it's been factually presented, it's not only a horrific gang rape, it's an almost unthinkable dereliction on the part of the grown ups in the room (the UVA administration) not to move heaven and earth to get the perps locked up where they belong. IF the allegations are true and I had a kid at UVA, I'd do everything I could to make sure all administrators with knowledge of the allegation lose their jobs.
That said, I'm very much aware of the FACT that the University is absolutely constrained by what they can and can't say to defend how they handled the situation. So, we've only heard one completely un-corroborated side of the story.
I'd like to wait until the facts come out fully before I pass final judgement.
Hybrid Mode
