<p>She didn’t want any facts getting in the way of her biases.</p>
<p>The back and forth between the UVa media department and the reporter was not unusual. Rarely if ever would a PR/Communications manager let any business representative sit alone through an interview and especially on on a potentially inflammatory topic. If it’s a TV interview the PR/media person is sitting just off the camera and if it’s a radio interview the PR/media person is in the studio. The posters that saw it has rude, trust me, it was business as usual and believe it or not, there are very few leaders that don’t at some point in their career truly appreciate the PR/Communications department.</p>
<p>Exactly. Maybe some of you aren’t familiar with that world. Exchanges with this type of communication are very common, and note the PR guy’s response back - something like “I’m sorry you’d have to portray us as non cooperative but I’m pleased I’m able to get you Sullivan.” There is simply nothing unusual or out of the ordinary on either side; it’s not “snarky.” </p>
<p>“She pointed out a lot of positives the university was working on , as had the advocates who were interviewed by Erdeley. (including a national conference they hosted about sexual violence on campuses earlier in the year, fraternity initiatives about bystander awareness, etc.). But little or none of anything positive seems to have made it into the article”</p>
<p>Erdely’s assignment was not to write a puff piece extolling UVA. </p>
<p>I’m sticking with snarky. And, it is very unusual to conduct a 30-minute interview of nothing where you go in labeling them as non-cooperative and then write a story slamming them for being non-cooperative. As, it should be. She never even mentioned the most explosive charges in the article. Not a peep.</p>
<p>Edit - Erdely didn’t have an assignment, she’s a freelancer with an agenda. </p>
<p>There is a vast difference between puff piece and diatribe. A smear like the RS article required that Erdley omit anything that might mitigate her central theme of UVa as the pinnacle of rape culture. </p>
<p>“Erdely wrote. “But I imagine a university president is fully capable of getting through a phone conversation on her own, without help.”</p>
<p>Erdely also wrote that she had “a finely tuned BS detector!”</p>
<p>Ann Coulter wrote “One in five people who write for Rolling Stone is a moron!”</p>
<p>Many have written “A Rolling Stone gathers no facts.”</p>
<p>I wrote “I would imagine that any journalist who graduated from Penn would be smart enough to avoid making themself a complete public disgrace.”</p>
<p>What goes around comes around. Karma is a b****.</p>
<p>The UVa rector mentioned that “innocent people” had been hurt. If he doesn’t believe that Jackie was not assaulted at that fraternity, then what innocent people is he referring to? It sounded to me like he thought the whole thing had been fabricated. </p>
<p>Yes, Erdely shot herself in the foot. She could have written the piece from a totally different angle based on the same premise, but she chose her angle and clearly put her future as an advocate journalist out there. One side only. My first reaction was OMG and not because I was “shocked” by the content but because of how it was written. It’s no wonder legitimate journalists are carefully picking their way through the carcass. The totally irony is that Erdely did no rape survivors a service in the public mind and I’m guessing that was where she intended her angle to be. She blew it. Big time. </p>
<p>Nobody wants a “puff piece.” But certainly a little balance should be the least that you should expect. In Erdeley’ s world, everybody at UVa , from the students to the administration, is portrayed negatively. Even the advocates who she spoke with seem to want nothing to do with her.</p>
<p>Interesting that Ann Coulter was brought up because she is known for her bombast.</p>
<p>Her career is very similar to what she says she despises. She just sits on the opposite side of the same coin. ;)</p>
<p>I liked the interview. It was stated by the president of uva that she could not talk about individual cases. </p>
<p>Who released the audio? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in the interviews, Erdely asks Sullivan about the alleged gang rapes at Phi Kappa Psi, and Sullivan responds that they are investigating a fraternity. I haven’t heard the audio (is it online?) but that seems more than a little blase as a response to the claim that three different students are claiming to have been gang raped at Phi Psi.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would you have said? She responded that they are investigating a fraternity. What more could she have said legally without inviting a gigantic lawsuit for disclosing confidential information. A journalist could have asked at that point when she thought the investigation would be completed and asked if she could do a follow-up but at that moment there is probably nothing more that the University could publicly disclose. Why do people think that spokespeople can just open their mouths and disclose all kinds of things that are confidential? This was an interview - not a court martial, not a senate investigation, not a civil trial. </p>
<p>CF, you can access the audio of the interview from this link. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rolling-stone-never-asked-u-va-about-gang-rape-allegations-according-to-newly-released-e-mail-exchanges/2014/12/19/1b9cc248-87cf-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rolling-stone-never-asked-u-va-about-gang-rape-allegations-according-to-newly-released-e-mail-exchanges/2014/12/19/1b9cc248-87cf-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html</a></p>
<p>I thought the response was a little blase myself. As I wrote in the other UVA thread, the investigation about the gang rapes should be investigated. :)</p>
<p>Gang rape is a serious crime, and she is hearing allegations that three different students say they were gang raped at Phi Psi. Either Sullivan is hearing these accusations for the first time, or she is not. If she is hearing the allegations for the first time, I’d think shock would be the normal reaction, followed by questions about details of the allegations. If she already knows about allegations that three different students were raped, then how long has she known, and why didn’t they investigate sooner?</p>
<p>It just seems like a mild reaction to a question that ought to be shocking. But I haven’t heard the audio. </p>
<p>In the interview,Erdeley never indicates how she has knowledge of 3 alleged gang rapes. The president just says they are investigating a fraternity, doesn’t say whether that is in response to a particular number of alleged rapes. One alleged gang rape is probably the one involving Jackie.</p>
<p>Can’t post a link but Washington Post had an article about “what happened about the other 2 gang rapes?” Apparently, Jackie was Erdeley’s source for this, telling her that 2 other girls had confided in her that they had also been gang raped at Phi Psi.</p>
<p>I just listened to the interview and in fact the college said they could not speak about a specific case without a release from everyone involved, the accuser, the accused and the witnesses. She also said in the fraternity investigation that she did not have the specific name(s). She just said they can take limited action in the case of an issue with a fraternity and that the national organizations often 'back up" a university in revocation of a fraternity charter. She also says there is not one fraternity culture which I agree with. She goes on to say that some of the fraternities have taken an active stance in working with administration on issues of sexual assault.</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, Is there a transcript, or do you have a rough idea of what time in the interview the questions came up? The description you provide makes a lot more sense to me than what the Washington Post wrote.</p>
<p>“So in the interviews, Erdely asks Sullivan about the alleged gang rapes at Phi Kappa Psi, and Sullivan responds that they are investigating a fraternity. I haven’t heard the audio (is it online?) but that seems more than a little blase as a response to the claim that three different students are claiming to have been gang raped at Phi Psi.”</p>
<p>Oh for heavens sake. There are legal ramifications. Even if Sullivan were personally in possession of videotape showing the events as Jackie described them plus sworn statements from Phi Psi members confessing to this, OR had a note from Jackie’s psychiatrist saying she is delusional and made the whole thing up, Sullivan can’t say ANYTHING, beyond “we are investigating.” What, really, did you expect her to say? She can’t comment. Even if she did, her PR and legal counsel would jump in and stop her. </p>