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.
Threaded Mode
