So what, Slog got cold feet and pulled the defamatory "Blackface" post?
smart.

I just read the NYT story. Indeed, atrocious journalism by Rolling Stone (RS). No wonder, I haven't read it decades. I wonder if the writer was ever fired? I also read that a UVA fraternity is suing RS as well. Evidently, that suit hasn't gone to trial.

1
Evidently not.
not smart.

Newsflash! 'Listen and Believe' sounds nice in theory but is not conducive for good journalism.

Hey, look at that. I guess blindly siding with the "victim" doesn't always work out - even for highly, legally protected "journalists" and their corporations.

Serves them right. While we're at it, we should put in stricter laws over false accusations, especially in the case of rape. This woman, the journalist, and Rolling Stone abjectly ruined the lives of most everyone who attended that fraternity. Even more important, false accusers only make it that much harder for real victims to come forward.

There's one other failure of journalism: the willingness to sweep "Jackie's" role in this under the rug. In your own piece "The Rolling Stone Rape Story Correction Is About a Failure of Journalism, Not a Failure of Trust" you cite Vox and point to the line "Jackie said she asked Erdely to be taken out of the story."

And yet a mere two sentences later there is this little tidbit "Jackie said she finally relented and agreed to participate on the condition that she be able to fact check her part of the story, which she said Erdely accepted." Ergo, she still signed off on the factual content of her story.

Furthermore, before the retraction, progressive and feminist organizations were rushing to defend both Erdely and Jackie, stating inconsistencies like Jackie's are common among victims of traumatic sexual assault and that using a single source is common in whistleblowing stories. Here are two of them:

https://thinkprogress.org/gang-rapes-hap…

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/12/doubting…

Lastly, Jackie always had a trump card she could have played to prevent RS from publishing her story: Jackie could have admitted she fabricated most, if not all, of the events she described. She could have PROVEN "Drew" didn't exist and that the pictures and text messages were stuff she created. But Jackie did not do so, not wanting to admit that she was a liar. And ignoring that feeds perfectly into the narrative that we should be skeptical of reported rapes.

You scream rape enough eventually when a real rape happens no one will believe you.

@1, they did pull that post. Good for The Stranger this time but too late for "Drunk of the Week". Wonder what the settlement will turn out to cost Tim and company?

@7 A lot of failures to go around, that's for sure. I certainly hope that the end result of this sad case is that we don't become "skeptical" in the vernacular sense -meaning "doubt" or "dis-belief"- when someone claims they've been raped or assaulted. They should always be taken seriously (it is a serious charge) by everyone, including authorities but of course the charges must hold up to scrutiny and must be supported by evidence; only this sense of skeptical -meaning withholding judgement until evidence is presented- is right and fair.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comins

It turns out when you run a crazy ass story without question, it might be false!

@13: Sneaky. Trying to make it look like Clayton Williams is in congress with the '(R, Texas)' - no he never held public office.

I remember years ago a paper published rape allegations against a musician in town that turned out not to be true.

That's why #IBELIEVE is never a good policy--especially for journalists. Just look at the Ghomeshi trial. Or Florida State. etc. etc.

@7 "There's one other failure of journalism: the willingness to sweep "Jackie's" role in this under the rug."

It was Erderly's story in the end, not Jackie's story. Erderly didn't fact check the story, or follow through with responses and basic Journalism 101. She got standard denials, and superficial replies from Jackie friends, that she was disturbed and agitated the night in question.. Erderly could had looked at a calendar, or when Rush Week was at University of Virginia, which was in Spring not in the Fall.

The Story fell apart because of Erderly not of Jackie, the allegations were so morbid, plus the indifference of the University's Administration was as just as outrageous, it caused a huge uproar. The story unravelled because Erderly didn't do her homework. It was a sloppy piece, hence why Erderly and Rolling Stone lost a defamation lawsuit..