Rolling Stone Retracts Fake UVA Rape Story; NO Apology

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The reporter will not be fired, and neither the magazine, nor the reporter has apologized to the victims- the men falsely accused of rape, and the UVA fraternities tarnished by the completely made up story.

www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/06/rolling-stone-apologizes-retracts-discredited-rape-story/

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

reason.com/blog/2015/04/06/heads-will-not-roll-at-rolling-stone

[Opti]

So what is this? Round three, four?

I don't think the reporter should be fired, and the people who made the men victims

were readers. If I remember correctly it was various readers possibly from conservative

blogs who were insistent on finding names and getting these men out in the open.

The interviewee didn't want to name names. She wanted attention I think.

Tell me though how we are supposed to punish private citizens or those not

associated with Rolling Stone who decided who these men were and put it all over

the internet? How do we punish them? Why haven't they been writing stories and

blog posts about how sorry they are for being wrong, and giving the false accusations

names for the public to see and know. Why are you giving them a pass?

[Tennesseer]

Apr 6, 2015 11:18:52 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The reporter will not be fired, and neither the magazine, nor the reporter has apologized to the victims- the men falsely accused of rape, and the UVA fraternities tarnished by the completely made up story.

www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/06/rolling-stone-apologizes-retracts-discredited-rape-story/

Rolling Stone Magazine, yesterday, April 5, 2015:


"This report was painful reading, to me personally and to all of us at Rolling Stone. It is also, in its own way, a fascinating document ­— a piece of journalism, as Coll describes it, about a failure of journalism. With its publication, we are officially retracting 'A Rape on Campus.' We are also committing ourselves to a series of recommendations about journalistic practices that are spelled out in the report. We would like to apologize to our readers and to all of those who were damaged by our story and the ensuing fallout, including members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and UVA administrators and students. Sexual assault is a serious problem on college campuses, and it is important that rape victims feel comfortable stepping forward. It saddens us to think that their willingness to do so might be diminished by our failings."

Rolling Stone and UVA: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Report

From Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the ROlling Stone author of the article, yesterday, APril 5, 2015


“The past few months, since my Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” was first called into question, have been among the most painful of my life. Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.


Statement From Writer of Rolling Stone Rape Article, Sabrina Erdely

[Opti]

Tenn, there were apologies before too. Paul just doesn't want to recognize them.

Heck he started a thread with a similar title last time as well.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 6, 2015 11:55:35 GMT -5 Opti said:

Tenn, there were apologies before too. Paul just doesn't want to recognize them.

Heck he started a thread with a similar title last time as well.

I know. I just wanted to point out Paul's credible sources were, as usual, a day late and a dollar short of truth.

[djAdvocate]

sounds like Bill O'Reilly and his fake war stories. 

[Virgil Showlion]

ibid.:

Rolling Stone late Sunday formally retracted the discredited story about the alleged rape at Phi Kappa Psi after an independent review dubbed the article a "journalistic failure."

The review, undertaken by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism at Rolling Stone's request, produced a 12,000-word report that documented lapses in standard journalistic procedure at every level of the magazine during the reporting and editing of the story.

The report was authored by dean Steve Coll and academic dean Sheila Coronel.

"I think the real casualty of the report is the University of Virginia's trust in journalism," said Abraham Axler of New York City, president of the university's Student Council. "I don't think any University of Virginia student going through this will ever read an article the same way."

"The abject failure of accountability in journalism that led to Rolling Stone's 'A Rape on Campus' article has done untold damage to the University of Virginia and our Commonwealth as a whole," Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in a statement Monday. "More importantly, this false account has been an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from real efforts to combat sexual violence on our college campuses. My administration will not allow this shameful episode to stop the momentum we have built working with administrators, law enforcement, students and advocates to keep our campuses safe."

Ouch.

The damage to the magazine's reputation seems like sufficient punishment. Nobody is going to trust anything they have to say about campus rape for many years to come.

[The Captain]

Apr 6, 2015 11:40:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

So what is this? Round three, four?

I don't think the reporter should be fired, and the people who made the men victims

were readers. If I remember correctly it was various readers possibly from conservative

blogs who were insistent on finding names and getting these men out in the open.

The interviewee didn't want to name names. She wanted attention I think.

Tell me though how we are supposed to punish private citizens or those not

associated with Rolling Stone who decided who these men were and put it all over

the internet? How do we punish them? Why haven't they been writing stories and

blog posts about how sorry they are for being wrong, and giving the false accusations

names for the public to see and know. Why are you giving them a pass?

I would have to disagree with this statement.  I think any responsible journalist has a professional and moral responsibility to attempt to corroborate a story, especially one that accuses of a crime and can damage reputations.  Otherwise it's no better than a tabloid.

IIRC (and I may not to be honest) I think basic facts such as dates and events didn't even match up.

[billisonboard]

Is Sabrina Rubin Erdely actually employed by Rolling Stone?

Award-winning freelance magazine journalist
Sabrina Rubin Erdely is an award-winning feature writer and investigative journalist, and a Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone. www.sabrinaerdely.com/

A contributing editor is a newspaper or magazine job title that varies in responsibilities. Most often, a contributing editor is a freelancer who has proven ability and readership draw. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributing_editor

A freelancer or freelance worker is a term commonly used for a person who is self-employed ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer

[Opti]

Apr 6, 2015 14:48:05 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Apr 6, 2015 11:40:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

So what is this? Round three, four?

I don't think the reporter should be fired, and the people who made the men victims

were readers. If I remember correctly it was various readers possibly from conservative

blogs who were insistent on finding names and getting these men out in the open.

The interviewee didn't want to name names. She wanted attention I think.

Tell me though how we are supposed to punish private citizens or those not

associated with Rolling Stone who decided who these men were and put it all over

the internet? How do we punish them? Why haven't they been writing stories and

blog posts about how sorry they are for being wrong, and giving the false accusations

names for the public to see and know. Why are you giving them a pass?

I would have to disagree with this statement.  I think any responsible journalist has a professional and moral responsibility to attempt to corroborate a story, especially one that accuses of a crime and can damage reputations.  Otherwise it's no better than a tabloid.

IIRC (and I may not to be honest) I think basic facts such as dates and events didn't even match up.

They absolutely should try to corroborate the story. There have been more than a few stories

out there that have had to be retracted. Many of them like this don't actually name names.

Remember that unfortunate story concerning the NJ waitress who supposedly got no tip

and a handwritten note against her lifestyle on it? Much like this story no names were given,

just what she wanted people to know. Only later was it discovered who the receipt was from

and that she forged the whole thing and created the story. In this environment of breaking news

and not infinite time to check things out I don't expect all reporters to get it right all the time.

Sometimes the story is so out there because it is made up. Sometimes its true and very hard

to verify one way or the other.

[zibazinski]

Well, I hope the lawsuit puts them out of business. We'll see what other rags out there hire reporters who make shit up.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2015 15:56:09 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, I hope the lawsuit puts them out of business. We'll see what other rags out there hire reporters who make shit up.

i don't.

the RS has been extremely valuable for a number of political issues, such as voter disenfranchisement.

i hope they get smacked down hard, and i hope the lesson sinks in.  but losing the RS would be losing a good check on our electoral system.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2015 19:48:54 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Wait a second...were there people who thought rolling stone was credible before this flub :-O ?

i have found RS to be totally credible on the issue i just described.  in fact, i think they have been the ONLY publication that has done a good job on it.  losing them would be a loss to anyone interested in this issue.

edit: i have no idea how their other reporting is.  i have pretty much ONLY read them for the above described subject, and an occasional interview with some notable music persona.

every publication does something well.  IE- the WSJ, Forbes, the Financial Times, and The Economist are excellent at business reporting.  their political reporting pretty much sux.

[zibazinski]

DS says he has to read 5-7 news sources to get what he hopes is an accurate story.    I also think RS is a joke but them being a joke does not excuse what they did.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 7, 2015 7:33:28 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

DS says he has to read 5-7 news sources to get what he hopes is an accurate story.    I also think RS is a joke but them being a joke does not excuse what they did.

i typically read 3-5 to ensure accuracy.

[EVT1]

RS does some good work- Taibbi comes to mind.

[Deleted]

Jackie has done so much damage all around. This is awful.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 7, 2015 12:43:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

RS does some good work- Taibbi comes to mind.

this is what i am saying.

even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER does some good work (shocking tho it may seem).

it is entirely up to the individual whether they want to ferret out all of the BAD information from a particular source.  it is a daunting challenge in the case of publications like the Washington Times, for sure- so i can't blame someone for NOT wanting to do it.  but as much as i find the WT a waste of time, i would NEVER suggest that it should be driven out of business.  i am SURE that sometimes they get it right, and i will be very grateful for that time, when it happens. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 7, 2015 13:05:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jackie has done so much damage all around. This is awful.

I haven't been following this story week to week.

I know what "Jackie" alleged. Is there any indication of why she did it? Is she mentally ill (i.e. she believes it actually happened), or did she do it out of vengeance? Is she a sociopath?

[Deleted]

Apr 7, 2015 13:33:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 7, 2015 13:05:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jackie has done so much damage all around. This is awful.

I haven't been following this story week to week.

I know what "Jackie" alleged. Is there any indication of why she did it? Is she mentally ill (i.e. she believes it actually happened), or did she do it out of vengeance? Is she a sociopath?

I haven't read a reason yet Virgil, at least not why she told the councilor the story in the first place. She didn't go to the media though, she was recommended to the reporter by the councilor she originally made the accusations too. Except for that occurrence, it doesn't look like her report would have gone anywhere since she wasn't naming anyone when she reported it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 7, 2015 20:11:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Apr 7, 2015 13:33:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I haven't been following this story week to week.

I know what "Jackie" alleged. Is there any indication of why she did it? Is she mentally ill (i.e. she believes it actually happened), or did she do it out of vengeance? Is she a sociopath?

I haven't read a reason yet Virgil, at least not why she told the councilor the story in the first place. She didn't go to the media though, she was recommended to the reporter by the councilor she originally made the accusations too. Except for that occurrence, it doesn't look like her report would have gone anywhere since she wasn't naming anyone when she reported it.

OK, thanks.

Here's another riddle for anyone reading this:

I've read in links by various posters that phony allegations of rape are exceptionally rare. I seem to recall the exact number quoted by one study was 5 false allegations out of 150 investigated.

At the same time, I've heard posters swear up, down, left, and right that police, courts, and the criminal justice system in general don't take rape seriously, don't believe the victims of rape, and that a majority of offenders are either never tried or never convicted.

How do we reconcile these two facts?

We have two standards. One (used by the studies) convicts practically everyone accused of rape. The other (the CJS) convicts only a minority of those accused. If we assume the standard for the court is "beyond reasonable doubt", what standard are these studies using? How much less rigorous is it than "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Just as importantly: I've read that these cases nearly always hinge on he-said-she-said testimony. The accuracy of such testimony happens to be the dependent variable in rape allegation studies and thus can't be used to determine if a rape claim is real or not. This begs the question: What evidence are these studies using to come up with 145 positives in 150 cases? They obviously can't be using court convictions, and we've ruled out contradictory testimony. What does that leave? Voluntary confessions from the accused?

[b2r]

 Rape charge dropped against former Uber driver


Cook County prosecutors dropped charges Monday against a former Uber X driver accused of sexually assaulting a passenger, telling a judge they were acting after new evidence came to light.

Maxime Fohounhedo, who has been in jail on $500,000 bail since his December arrest, was expected to be released later Monday. His attorney, Shady Yousif Yassin, said the new evidence was an approximately nine-minute recording his client made on his cellphone while driving the alleged victim home in November.

The woman, who told authorities she was lapsing in and out of consciousness, "was totally alert the whole time" and "engaged in what sounded like a friendly conversation about ... her boyfriend and her work," Yassin said.

"At the end, she gives him a big hug and a big kiss," Yassin said. "That's not somebody who's in fear of her life."

Yassin credited prosecutors for quickly dropping the charges after learning of the recording.

"Lord knows what would've been the outcome if the recording didn't exist," he said.

Prosecutors spoke with the woman and told her about the recording before Monday's hearing, said Sally Daly, a spokeswoman for the state's attorney's office said.

"She understood the decision and did not object to us going ahead and dismissing the charges," Daly said.


www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-rape-charge-dropped-met-20150406-story.html

[Deleted]

Virgil Showlion that is not hard to reconcile, not enough evidence to convict is not the same as a false allegation. Even the police are not claiming that. Nobody thinks OJ is innocent just because he wasn't convicted.

b2r why did the guy wait 3 months to produce the recording?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 6, 2015 11:55:35 GMT -5 Opti said:

Tenn, there were apologies before too. Paul just doesn't want to recognize them.

Heck he started a thread with a similar title last time as well.

There were no apologies to the victims Rolling Stone defamed.

[billisonboard]

Apr 8, 2015 9:11:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 6, 2015 11:55:35 GMT -5 Opti said:

Tenn, there were apologies before too. Paul just doesn't want to recognize them.

Heck he started a thread with a similar title last time as well.

There were no apologies to the victims Rolling Stone defamed.

See reply #3.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 8, 2015 7:26:26 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Virgil Showlion that is not hard to reconcile, not enough evidence to convict is not the same as a false allegation. Even the police are not claiming that. Nobody thinks OJ is innocent just because he wasn't convicted.

I understand that. What I'm looking for is the details of a scenario where there's not enough evidence to convict, but there is enough evidence for a study to reliably conclude that the allegation of rape isn't false. Note that for such a study to be valid, it must make no assumptions about (and therefore may not rely on) the truthfulness of the victim's testimony, since this is precisely the variable it's measuring.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 7, 2015 13:33:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 7, 2015 13:05:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jackie has done so much damage all around. This is awful.

I haven't been following this story week to week.

I know what "Jackie" alleged. Is there any indication of why she did it? Is she mentally ill (i.e. she believes it actually happened), or did she do it out of vengeance? Is she a sociopath?

I think the accuser is less the story than why a reporter and the editorials both published an extremely damaging accusation without ANY (astonishing, but true- NONE, no research, and an admission that no effort to find a witness, or interview the accused was made) investigation or research at all?  The answer of course is to attack the institution of the fraternity itself- not the individual fraternity, but frat life in general; and to perpetuate the completely unsubstantiated claim of college campus "rape culture"- which suggests that college campuses and especially fraternity houses routinely engage in rape, it is seen as ok, rapists are supported, and evidence of rape is covered up.  Of course no such rape culture exists anywhere, unless you count in the circles of wealthy and influential people- like Bill Clinton- who went on one excursions to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's "Orgy Island" where it is now known underage sex slaves were repeatedly victimized.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 8, 2015 9:20:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 7, 2015 13:33:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I haven't been following this story week to week.

I know what "Jackie" alleged. Is there any indication of why she did it? Is she mentally ill (i.e. she believes it actually happened), or did she do it out of vengeance? Is she a sociopath?

I think the accuser is less the story than why a reporter and the editorials both published an extremely damaging accusation without ANY (astonishing, but true- NONE, no research, and an admission that no effort to find a witness, or interview the accused was made) investigation or research at all?  The answer of course is to attack the institution of the fraternity itself- not the individual fraternity, but frat life in general; and to perpetuate the completely unsubstantiated claim of college campus "rape culture"- which suggests that college campuses and especially fraternity houses routinely engage in rape, it is seen as ok, rapists are supported, and evidence of rape is covered up.  Of course no such rape culture exists anywhere, unless you count in the circles of wealthy and influential people- like Bill Clinton- who went on one excursions to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's "Orgy Island" where it is now known underage sex slaves were repeatedly victimized.

I don't think anyone is questioning that it was a huge journalistic failure at this point, especially after the magazine's own study concluded the report was a huge journalistic failure.

I want to know about the accuser. Why did she make the whole thing up?

If phony rape allegations are as rare as studies claim they are, I'm curious about what motivated this particular phony accusation.

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2015 9:18:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 8, 2015 7:26:26 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Virgil Showlion that is not hard to reconcile, not enough evidence to convict is not the same as a false allegation. Even the police are not claiming that. Nobody thinks OJ is innocent just because he wasn't convicted.

I understand that. What I'm looking for is the details of a scenario where there's not enough evidence to convict, but there is enough evidence for a study to reliably conclude that the allegation of rape isn't false. Note that for such a study to be valid, it must make no assumptions about (and therefore may not rely on) the truthfulness of the victim's testimony, since this is precisely the variable it's measuring.

Here I know it's Wikipedia, but it does a pretty good job of describing the process. The number of false or unfounded accusations are a bit higher than I expected but still very low.