quote:
Since then, numerous media outlets have cited my concerns while adding their own. Far too many have weighed in to keep a proper count, but The New Republic, The Washington Examiner, The Federalist, The American Conservative, and The Washington Post all published articles worth a read, and all have valid questions about Erdely's reporting.

But perhaps the most serious question about the accuracy of the story is one inadvertently raised by Erdely herself, at the prompting of Slate's Hanna Rosin, several days ago. Erdely was interviewed by Rosin's Double X podcast; when pressed for crucial details about whether she knew the perpetrators names and sought their sides of the story, Erdely repeatedly dodged the question. Eventually, she conceded this: "What exactly happened? I wasn't in that room. I don't know."

quote:
Lastly, I should mention that I have fielded criticisms all day from people—some of them libertarian-leaning—who think it was wrong of me to write a story questioning a rape accusation at all. Some believe that by expressing skepticism of Erdely's reporting, I risked identifying libertarianism with rape denial. Needless to say, I disagree; anyone who gives my previous work a fair appraisal should conclude that I treat sexual assault with the utmost seriousness. Whatever the extent of the campus rape crisis, I am interested in exploring potential solutions, and believe I have pinpointed a major one.

Here is the Slate (super liberal organization) Article

quote:
Erdely’s editor at Rolling Stone, Sean Woods, has confirmed that the writer did not talk to Drew or any of the men that Jackie alleges participated in the rape. “We did not talk to them. We could not reach them,” he told the Washington Post, although he added that the magazine verified their existence by talking to Jackie’s friends. “I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real,” he said. “We knew who they were.”

quote:
We don’t hear how Cindy recalls that same conversation, one that is pretty damning to Cindy.

Both Erdely and Woods have said that they decided to tell the story mostly from Jackie’s point of view. As Woods told the Post, “We were telling Jackie’s story. It’s her story.”

there is a lot more information (often overlapping) in the 2 links above. this really shows the murky area that is "rape" involving college students, especially when you have a media creating the story instead of reporting on the story. in this very example, rolling stone fully admits that it is creating a narrative. it's "telling jackie's story"

when you combine that with the beliefs that you should never question a rape victim, you presume that the alleged perpetrator is guilty, and you slant all dissemination of information to protect one side and hurt the other, you get this situation. i have no idea if something happened at UVA, and now that rolling stone has created this inflammatory piece, the underlying situation is going to be so emotional and the groups involved so defensive, that any investigation will be pointless.

just look at the last quoted part from the Reason blog. the SJW belief system is so warped that ANY questioning of the reporting of a rape story requires a disclaimer that you're not pro-rape. journalists should be reminded of this early and often

quote:
Still, I must go on reporting the news as it actually happens, not the version of it that is most convenient for making libertarianism more palatable to the social justice crowd.

you are not the fricking story

you are here to report facts

you are not supposed to create your own story

you are not supposed to "report" on a situation from one side to fabricate an exaggerated story and represent it as a reflection of reality

This post was edited on 12/5/14 at 1:35 pm