RS apologizes for UVA rape story

[rudeguy]

I did work for a national broadcaster but it was soft news, so I can't really comment about the print industry or what goes on with these investigative journalists. What surprises me is that the reporter didn't get thrown under the bus. I've seen people fired for far less than that. You'd think their legal team would be on it like white on rice. Especially when the company is potentially facing a pretty substantial libel suit. Likely internal politics that allowed her to keep her job. She probably knows somebody with a lot of clout.

So why did this slip past the editor? I have some theories.
1) The current political correctness mantra dictates that you should never second guess an alleged rape victim. If you do, you suddenly become the bad guy.

2) The editors saw a story that fit their political agenda a bit too perfectly. "Rape Culture" is the current social justice cause d'jeur, and RS is considered a left wing publication. They got a bit too excited and went off half cocked without checking their facts. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. Certainly won't be the last.

It's gross negligence on their part.

The Columbia piece found they didn't do even basic fact checking. No interviewing anyone involved except for "the victim".

 

[Jodell88]

Jann Wenner once fired an editor of the Rolling Stone for a negative review of a Hootie & the Blowfish album.

 

[Jodell88]

The University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi announced Monday that the fraternity house will file a lawsuit against Rolling Stone, calling the magazine’s reporting that described an alleged gang-rape by some of its members “reckless.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nity-announces-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone/

I hope they win.

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405

problem is they ever apologized to the men they dragged through the dirt, the fraternity.

Rolling Stone used to have very high journalism standards.
But those days were long ago. Now its just another libtard propaganda machine. Cuz libtards are easier to appeal to with lazy writing and inflammatory articles. Thats what sells ad space.

 

[Fingolfin269]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nity-announces-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone/

I hope they win.

Yep. :thumbsup:

 

[Ichinisan]

Radio Shack has no journalistic integrity!

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nity-announces-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone/

I hope they win.

I hope so as well. I think in those kinds of cases libel is hard to prove, and damages are difficult to quantify, but it would be nice to see a rag like RS get hammered for unfairly accusing that frat of such a crime without doing any fact checking at all. It would send a message to other outlets to be a little more careful about such things.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Does RS have any liability here? They basically damaged the reputations of a lot of people by publishing a lie and profited from it.

They have a whole shitload of liability here. The checks they eventually write to that frat and to UVa are going to have a LOT of zeroes on them.

 

[Exophase]

Rolling Stone used to have very high journalism standards.
But those days were long ago. Now its just another libtard propaganda machine. Cuz libtards are easier to appeal to with lazy writing and inflammatory articles. Thats what sells ad space.

Same is true with pretty much anything that was once old media but has been forced to transition to online to survive. The only way to compete against click bait is with click bait, and that won't change so long as they use purely ad based income models.

 

[Ferzerp]

The only way to compete against click bait is with click bait, and that won't change so long as they use purely ad based income models.

Yeah, because the internet invented yellow journalism. Oh wait. Renaming a thing does not make it a new thing. A rose by any other name...

 

[Exophase]

Yeah, because the internet invented yellow journalism. Oh wait...

You really thought what I said implied that?

It's not specifically moving to the internet, it's moving to a purely ad-driven and link distributed model, even if the internet is needed to facilitate such a transition (meaning they could have stuck with subscriptions). And there's no question in my mind that several publications have lowered in journalistic integrity since then. That hardly means everyone was perfect beforehand but it's gotten worse.

And it's exactly what you'd expect. They care about getting as many clicks as possible, and they know that if the headline looks interesting people will click on it (from an image link on some other click bait farm) People pay a lot less attention to the source and are a lot less dedicated to it so there's a lot less to lose with any one bad article - that is, if the readers even catch on that it was bad.

Just look at the sheer volume of articles any of these sites pushes out today, it's far beyond what a print publication ever could have generated. With such a great volume comes a diminished ability to properly vet stories even if they want.

 

[rudeguy]

You really thought what I said implied that?

It's not specifically moving to the internet, it's moving to a purely ad-driven and link distributed model, even if the internet is needed to facilitate such a transition (meaning they could have stuck with subscriptions). And there's no question in my mind that several publications have lowered in journalistic integrity since then. That hardly means everyone was perfect beforehand but it's gotten worse.

And it's exactly what you'd expect. They care about getting as many clicks as possible, and they know that if the headline looks interesting people will click on it (from an image link on some other click bait farm) People pay a lot less attention to the source and are a lot less dedicated to it so there's a lot less to lose with any one bad article - that is, if the readers even catch on that it was bad.

Just look at the sheer volume of articles any of these sites pushes out today, it's far beyond what a print publication ever could have generated. With such a great volume comes a diminished ability to properly vet stories even if they want.

they didn't interview anyone other than the "victim".

 

[zinfamous]

Well, that's awkward.

 

[shortylickens]

Oh and her roomie Emily Clarke also lied her ass off.

 

[SSSnail]

You really thought what I said implied that?

It's not specifically moving to the internet, it's moving to a purely ad-driven and link distributed model, even if the internet is needed to facilitate such a transition (meaning they could have stuck with subscriptions). And there's no question in my mind that several publications have lowered in journalistic integrity since then. That hardly means everyone was perfect beforehand but it's gotten worse.

And it's exactly what you'd expect. They care about getting as many clicks as possible, and they know that if the headline looks interesting people will click on it (from an image link on some other click bait farm) People pay a lot less attention to the source and are a lot less dedicated to it so there's a lot less to lose with any one bad article - that is, if the readers even catch on that it was bad.

Just look at the sheer volume of articles any of these sites pushes out today, it's far beyond what a print publication ever could have generated. With such a great volume comes a diminished ability to properly vet stories even if they want.

Yeah, because rape on campus by a fraternity happens every 8 seconds...

 

[master_shake_]

Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity at the heart of Rolling Stone's now-retracted December 2014 cover story "A Rape on Campus," will sue the magazine for publishing what it calls a "defamatory" and "reckless" story, according to the AP. In a public statement, the Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi said it plans to "pursue all available legal action against the magazine."
The frat alleges that the story resulted in its house being vandalized and its members being ostracized on campus. UVA Phi Kappa Psi president Stephen Scipione also said in the statement that the frat has become emblematic of the nationwide campus assault epidemic, despite the fact that Rolling Stone has retracted the story.
"Clearly our fraternity and its members have been defamed, but more importantly we fear this entire episode may prompt some victims to remain in the shadows, fearful to confront their attackers," Scipione said.
The news follows Columbia Journalism School's damning report of the editorial process behind "A Rape on Campus," which Rolling Stone acknowledged in a retraction statement was a "journalistic failure that was avoidable."
This is a breaking story and will be updated as we learn more.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/frat-suing-rolling-stone-for-defamatory-story.html

 

[Drako]

Who expects anything less from Rolling Stone.

They have the Proggie hit piece guy in Matt Taibbi on their staff.

Fact finding be damned.

 

[drebo]

I spent 6 years at two different colleges and I don't know of a single person who was raped on either campus.

While I agree that any rape is bad and rapists should get the chair, I think that the definition they're using for rape in a lot of these cases is way too broad. Getting drunk and regretting it in the morning is not rape. Personal responsibility, people--if you don't want it, don't go upstairs.

This sounds like a case of an activist reporter trying to make a name for herself by being blind to whatever doesn't conform to her political opinion.

 

[Gooberlx2]

So THIS is what last week's Law and Order: SVU was about.

 

[mikeford]

Big question is will the damaged parties be able to sue for enough to make Rolling Stones action unprofitable enough that it discourages repeating?

 

[dabuddha]

People read Rolling Stone?

 

[boomerang]

People read Rolling Stone?

Oh yeah. The kind of people that see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a victim read it.

 

[waggy]

they didn't interview anyone other than the "victim".

nope. The reason they give is the "victim" asked them not to. yeah that in itself should have been a HUGE red flag

 

[Sulaco]

Oh well..

At least I can look forward to Seventeen magazine's article on the Rise of Islamic State this month. It's right after the article on how to get GLAM HAIR and FAB NAILS for Prom.

:thumbsup:

 

[GasX]

"The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking."

aren't those the pillars of journalism?