I've tried to keep an open mind about the claims put forth by a Rolling Stone article last month which, if believed, makes the University of Virginia look like a safe haven for rapists and misogynists. The University of Virginia has understandably cried foul and now, journalists are beginning to question the account and quality of reporting done by the articles author who seemed to only want to hear things that furthered her agenda of writing a sensational story. The New York Times looks at the rising scrutiny the story and reporter are facing. Here are excerpts:
An article in Rolling Stone magazine about an alleged gang rape on the campus of the University of Virginia has come under scrutiny for its reporting methods, even as the university and the local police investigate the events the article described.A piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch also steps into the controversy and cites a troubling mindset:
After the article’s publication last month, the case was handed to the Charlottesville, Va., police; the university vowed to update its policies; and the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, suspended its operations.
But some have also raised questions about the article. Its writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has faced criticism because she has acknowledged in interviews that she did not contact or interview the men accused of the rape. News organizations, seeking to be fair, usually seek comment from those suspected of criminal conduct. In an interview Tuesday, Ms. Erdely said that she stood by her reporting.
[S]ome journalists have raised questions about the story. Richard Bradley, who as an editor at George magazine was duped by the former New Republic writer and fabulist Stephen Glass, said in an essay that he had since learned to be skeptical of articles that confirm existing public narratives. “This story contains a lot of apocryphal tropes,” he wrote. Others, including Jonah Goldberg, a Los Angeles Times columnist, compared the case to rape accusations in 2006 against three lacrosse players at Duke University who were subsequently cleared and speculated that the Virginia story might be a hoax.
News media critics questioned the article’s reliance on a single source. “For the sake of Rolling Stone’s reputation,” said Erik Wemple, The Washington Post’s media critic, “Sabrina Rubin Erdely had better be the country’s greatest judge of character.”Further details of the episode, beyond what was in the article, have not yet emerged, and the man accused of orchestrating the alleged assault has not been publicly identified. The identities of the other men accused of the rape were not known to Rolling Stone, beyond nicknames, and it is not clear whether they are known to the authorities.
An interesting meme is beginning to evolve around the Rolling Stone story. Here and there, mainly on social media, we’re beginning to read that it doesn’t really matter if the story’s completely true, that it has revealed a culture among elite fraternities that not only accepts but celebrates the sexual abuse of women. The story has, therefore, performed an invaluable public service. Furthermore, those who question the details of the story give cover to an unforgivable culture of rape. This is journalism as fable, as purveyor of morality tales designed to reveal large truths. Small facts are for small minds, or worse.
It is certainly true that sexual abuse in colleges and elsewhere merits serious attention, analysis and correction. It’s a problem with many sources and few simple solutions. So what better than a clarifying narrative of monsters loose at an elite university, preying on innocent freshmen women? It happens. But is the rape at Phi Psi in 2012 real? Did it happen? Oddly, those in positions of authority seem afraid to even ask, at least publicly. They’re too busy reacting.
Allegations are easy to make and more than one individual's story line should be consulted before attacking an institution or individuals. The Duke University hoax does demonstrate how easy it is to provide lies to only too willing journalists. I'd also note that if there is a culture in American society that sees women as objects, let's place the blame where it belongs: Macho males indoctrinated in the belief that women are subordinate to men and/or willing temptresses. Where do they get such indoctrination? From their churches.
