The outrage of the moment in Sommers-land is the journalistic failings of a Rolling Stone article reporting on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. Rebecca Traister at The New Republic discusses this meta-story (so note we’re at level 4 here).
Over the past few days, several publications have reported journalistic lapses in Rolling Stone‘s blockbuster story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. The reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, never contacted the men that her subject, a student she calls “Jackie,” alleges raped her. Erdely also did not acknowledge in the body of the piece that she did not contact them.
These are serious charges: Journalists are supposed to seek multiple perspectives on the stories they report to try to present the fullest and fairest assessment of events; this is especially true when one source is alleging that a criminal act took place. It’s ironic and telling, though, that Erdely’s doubters have blown up their suspicions well beyond the available evidence, calling her story a “hoax” and comparing it to the fabricated pieces published by Stephen Glass in The New Republic and other magazines.
Imagine my lack of surprise.
It’s a massive leap in logic to move from a reasonable journalistic critique of Erdely’s reporting and disclosure practices to writing, as former George journalist Richard Bradley does in his blog post, “I’m not convinced that this gang rape actually happened.” It is symptomatic of exactly the patterns of incredulity and easy dismissal of rape accusations that keep many assaulted women and men from ever bringing their stories to authorities or to the public.
The reporting can be badly flawed and the story still be true, after all.
Consider that the weaknesses of the criminal system prompted Jackie not to tell her rape story first to police, but rather to friends—many of whom, she claims, blamed her and urged her not to go to authorities—and then to the university’s private system, which she says treated her poorly. It’s not so hard to imagine that by the time she got to Erdely with her story, she might reasonably have been fearful of retaliation. It was Jackie’s discomfort with identifying her victims, and her fear of the consequences, Erdely told The Washington Post, that led her to tread too delicately in her investigations.
Well let’s face it – people who report being raped always face horrible consequences. Always.
Erdely, in her role as journalist, should have done things differently, should have tried to speak with the figures accused or made explicitly clear that she had not spoken to them. Those handling cases in which more official systems have broken down do everyone, including themselves, a terrible disservice in not behaving with obsessive care.
Remember when PZ published Alison Smith’s account? He made it explicitly clear that he was doing just that.
But do not forget, as we go about what is sure to be the unpleasant business of turning our suspicions on Erdely—and in turn, on Jackie—that the swift shift of focus is central to what’s so jacked about systemic inequalities (and our impulse to pretend they don’t exist) to begin with.
It’s no coincidence that this is what Sommers and her allies are focusing on.
I’m amazed* by how many people think a rape accusation is a ticket to instant fame and riches, and use that to impugn the motives of anyone claiming to be sexually assaulted ever. It’s part of that “Rape is the most serious and terrible crime, which is why we should never accuse anyone of doing it ever” myth, I guess.
*Wrong word. Not amazed. Disgusted. Violently angered
Anthony: a lot of MRAs say that sort of thing about damn near anything a woman does. I’ve heard them say that women are “too quick to push the divorce button,” as if divorce was a push-button operation. These guys seem to really believe that women have EVERYTHING so much easier than men — even women in war zones trying to steer clear of invading soldiers. They’re a lot like children who are not yet mature enough to see anything past their own immediate pain, needs, suffering, etc. and understand that other people have feelings too.
Wish I could find the link, but apparently Erdely was asked about this in an interview (with Slate maybe?) and said that she tried to contact the accused and the frat, multiple times, but got nothing.
Thank you for writing this. There’s a lot of heat going on around this. I question Bradley’s biases myself in a current Reddit discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/2o6dyh/shots_in_the_dark_blog_archive_is_the_rolling/
@themann1086: Here you go
I read this phrase and wondered who is being cast as the victim here:
This looks a whole lot like the people who raped Jackie are being called victims. WTF?
Funny you should bring up divorce, Raging Bee. I was reading LG&M on declining divorce rates, and in the comments someone mentioned research showing that the initial surge in divorce rates correlated with a decrease in the rate of murdered husbands. Bring this up next time you’re talking to an MRA. The more you can convince to Go Galt with the MGTOWers, the better I’m sure.
Found one of the sources: http://www.ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/pubs/lasr_03701005.pdf
So, domestic violence resources for women make married men less likely to be killed by their partners, but don’t seem to have much of an effect on violence perpetrated against women.
Yeah, really sucks to be a guy, fellas. We just can’t catch a break (probably because our arms are already too full of the breaks we were handed.)
Sorry for the OT post, Ophelia, but that study was too interesting not to share.
One of the things I notice is people dismissing the story because it alleges that the gang rape is a yearly initiation. People (Bradley specifically) think that’s too fantastic to be credible. Yet the original piece doesn’t claim that. When you reach the point of inventing reasons to discredit the piece, I don’t think your skepticism is rational.
Of course the accused wouldn’t speak to her. They’d have to be crazy or stupid to even consider it. Guilty or innocent, if somebody is accusing you of a crime (or litigious action) you say NOTHING without your lawyer. You’d think a journalist would know that. There’s a reason Bill Cosby won’t even say “no comment” when people ask him about the women he raped.
Seems to me the only thing missing in the piece is the stock (boring, trite, cliche) statement that “efforts to speak with the fraternity were made” or some such.
Journalism 101, meet Kabuki.
“I’m not convinced that this gang rape actually happened.
I expect the same script to play out as it did for Allison Smith.
1) Myers is lying and making stuff up for clicks
2) Well Myers has an anonymous source – we can’t trust anonymous sources
3) Ok Carrie Poppy also verifies the source but its still an anonymous souce ? Have you forgotten Mooney and Exhibit A?
4) Well fine the source is now named , but it’s still a persons word against another
5) Well ok we have more names and other witnesses but there is no legal conviction yet. (oh and Myers still lies and makes up stuff for clicks , and that goes for the rest of the people who blog on the same network – makes one wonder what if PZ blogged on WordPress or blogger)
6) if somehow there is a legal conviction – Well thats an isolated case – You cant really draw any conclusions from one case.
Rinse and repeat.
dshetty, I’ve ended up in ‘dicussions’ (for lack of a better word) with ‘skeptics’ who insist that #4 never happened and that we don’t know Allison Smith’s name. And no, they aren’t being skeptical they are just flat out in denial.
Meta-story? Meta-blaming by proxy.
Dshetty@13: yup, it’s classic denialism tactics. You could map that list onto AGW, tobacco, etc.
The Columbia Journalism Review has a few issues with the reporting also.
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/rolling_stone_uva_rape.php
Geez! The ‘both sides’ fallacy again. As if collecting pull quotes was equivalent to actual investigation. Reading Daily Beast, Slate, Jezebel etc. one could count the typos and bogus allusions and justify doubting that the sky is blue—if those journals were willing to risk saying so.
In every reporting flurry, we have a serious level of confusion and conclusion-jumping. But no one expects an inch by inch report of the trajectories in a car wreck. Of course one can imagine all sorts of worst-case possibilities. But it seems absolutely deranged not to start with a presumption than Something Terrible, and almost certainly criminal, is being reported.
Rolling Stone apparently never talked to the men accused of raping Jackie
Ya know what??? CNN never talked to those ISIS guys accused of cutting off journalists’ heads. Scandal, amirite?? Or could it just be that they’re dangerous fuckers, or they’re people nobody wants to talk to on the telephone, or maybe they not the talkative kind?
You know what? I’m glad she didn’t talk to the rapists. Because fuck ’em. They should be in prison.
Not that Jackie should have to press charges, of course. She doesn’t have to do anything other than heal.
I just… the whole story doesn’t set me on edge, but pushes me over the edge and gets me raging…
No Marcus, you are not rite. These men’s existence and names need to be confirmed. As of now, they are not.
Marcus, you are not rite. These men’s existence and names need to be confirmed
Fool, I didn’t say that their existence and names doesn’t need to be confirmed, just that they aren’t going to be trustworthy enough that calling them is not going to change things either way.
Marcus child,
If Erderly knows their names she should say so. If she tried to contact them she should say how. If they said ‘No Comment’ she should quote them. These steps do more work than you seem to understand.
We know the ISIS be-headers exist because we saw them. Try again.
Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he did work at the Aquatic Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie’s name. He said, however, that he had never met Jackie in person and had never taken her on a date. He also confirmed that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.
Calling them changed things, Marcus.