<p>Right, but we have no way of knowing what she said due to the absence of quotes and attribution. </p>
<p>Andy, confirmed part of Jackie’s story. She was distressed.</p>
<p>I thought it said in the RS article that a couple of women who were in One Less or whatever that organization is told Jackie they were gang raped. I think there are fewer than 50 people in that group. That is why, if this is going to be pursued, I would try to find those people. </p>
<p>I may be wrong about this. I have to reread the article later.</p>
<p>The fraternity is going to be fine unless something else comes up.</p>
<p>At Berkeley, the school cuts its affiliation with some fraternities and the fraternities still exist.</p>
<p>There are a number of Jackie quotes in the RS article, as well as in the WaPo.</p>
<p>Well, yes of course there are a number of quotes but the very reason this became an issue in the first place is the ones that are missing. No-one thinks Jackie said nothing but but no-one thinks she said everything either. And, now that includes RS despite their current attempt to blame the source for this debacle.That won’t work. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technically, you are correct, but I said hearsay for a reason. You are making the assumption that it did happen and that she was there. No one has clue about that, except Jackie. </p>
<p>Given all the inconsistencies, I see everything now as hearsay until there is something backing up that she was actually there in the house in that situation with those guy(s). Thus far, zilch has been provided to show that was the case. </p>
<p>One of the Washington Post’s pieces, perhaps one by one of the media critics, said that Erdeley spent six months picking her victim. And by that I don’t mean Jackie. She interviewed women from Ivy League schools, including her own alma mater U Penn, but none of those stories was ‘just right’. So she chooses a story in which the alleged perps are fraternity guys, at a Southern public school. She wanted a story that supported her own prejudices. </p>
<p>For readers :Hopefully in the future people will read ‘stories’ with a very critical eye. Journalists are often advocates for a position and when facts interfere with their view of the world, they ignore the facts or fail to do due diligence in reporting. </p>
<p>For rape victims: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and tell it to the police immediately.</p>
<p>For universities: Let the police and the courts handle serious crimes. </p>
<p>“You are making the assumption that it did happen and that she was there.”</p>
<p>It still wouldn’t be hearsay. If I tell you a story I made up that I rode a pink horse through the clouds, that might be a lie, but it’s not hearsay. Hearsay has a specific meaning: repeating someone else’s alleged words to prove the truth of those words.</p>
<p>^^ I know. I should have used another word because I do not mean hearsay technically like you. This is better - instead of hearsay, I view what she and the reporter say as gossip to push an agenda, until proved otherwise.</p>
<p>What was the agenda?</p>
<p><a href=“Rolling Stone UVA rape story continues to unravel. Jackie's friend "Andy" speaks out.”>Rolling Stone UVA rape story continues to unravel. Jackie's friend "Andy" speaks out.;
<p>Friend who talked to Jenny right after alleged attack said RS never tried to contact him. Says many aspects of article are not correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that statistic refers to (technical) assault, not rape. (not that un-invited touching is ok either).</p>
<p>In response to a comment above that claimed that UVa unfairly cracked down on Phi Psi without evidence -, that is not true. The national was suspending the chapter, not UVa. UVa simply suspended activities at all fraternities until the start of the next semester. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Need to talk to Jackie and the reporter to get that exactly. </p>
<p>However, clearly it was not about getting justice for Jackie because no real names, fake this, false that etc. There is something else going on here because it was not to help Jackie that was for sure. We will find out after learning more about the reporter and maybe more about Jackie too. </p>
<p>I think that a lot of the final shape and content of the article has to do with the publication that paid for it and in which it ran.</p>
<p>S did a story that involved infiltrating a certain organization’s operations in a certain sphere. After almost all of the reporting was done he pitched it to a publication. They accepted it for publication. My understanding from him was that the final version of this kind of thing is shaped with the editor the reporter is working with. This may involve additional reporting, and so on. It was written as a piece of “narrative journalism”: that is, he and his interactions with people appeared in the story. The publication did fact-checking, it was reviewed by their legal department. It was all set to go. The editorial board decided not to run it after all at that time (not because it failed fact-checking). They paid him a kill fee so that he could pitch it elsewhere. The story was shortly thereafter accepted, run, and paid for by another publication, but they don’t publish narrative journalism, so he had to strip out all of that content for them. The bare facts remained the same, but it was a different article.</p>
<p>So it seems to me that RS would have had a huge influence on what actually appeared in the story. They would be absolutely implicit in the decision to place Jackie’s story at the center of the article. They would absolutely talk about what needed to be fleshed out more, what details should go in and what details should not. I don’t know what kind of stories this person wrote for other publications, but this one was just like the Janet Reitman RS specials, all of which are suspect IMHO.</p>
<p>Look at something like the line about “don’t you want to be a brother.” Note that this could have MANY interpretations, none of which would actually involve some kind of ritual behavior OR that the individual(s) so addressed were actually pledges. Note that RS never stated that it was a pledge ritual, even though that is being used to refute the whole thing. RS left itself open to this because they obviously very much wanted that implication to be there.</p>
<p>Similarly, the house is saying that <em>as far as they can tell</em> no brother was employed at the pool at that time. People are using this as evidence that “Drew” is not real. Of course, given the fact that Jackie now says she knew it was that specific house only because a friend pointed it out while making an ambiguous comment, “Drew” could very well be real, but a member of another house. Similarly, the house is saying they didn’t have an official party that night. Obviously, another house could have, or she could have misinterpreted a bunch of people partying in the house as an official registered party. </p>
<p>I think that the editor is the one who is ultimately going to make the decisions about what is sufficiently sourced and what is not. I think it is very likely that people who would not cooperate with the reporter from RS would indeed cooperate with the WaPo once it was out there, but it seems pretty clear that RS was hot to run the story in its “sexiest” version, as usual, and unwilling to tone it down in the interests of responsible journalism and ethics.</p>
<p>That was a very thoughtful and informative post, Consolation. </p>
<p>BTW, I can easily understand why Jackie could have transformed oral sex with multiple guys to vaginal penetration by multiple guys when telling other people about a traumatic experience. I think it’s pretty obvious. The former implies at least the possibility of some kind of action on her part, even if at gun- or knife-point, and she gave no indication that the “force” was anything like that. The latter is much more clearly a situation in which the victim can be completely inert.</p>
<p>Note: I am not saying she did so, merely answering a question above.</p>
<p>Charliesch, can you please use the name Jackie?</p>
<p>Awcntdb, what agenda did the reporter push?</p>
<p>Consolation, love your post.</p>
<p>When I say Drew is not real, that is because there isn’t a lifeguard from that fraternity at that time.</p>
<p>I am not drop dead sure about this. :)</p>
<p>Consolation, yeah I just love your posts.
This story is not over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is pretty accurate, as to the final position before printing. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the sexiest piece was also the most vague and the most damaging because of its vagueness for everyone is left to make it up and fill in the pieces to fit the perceived narrative that he likes. That is really manipulating the public in a subtle, sinister way.</p>
<p>The question I have is, “Is there any truth left in much of journalism or is it all about narrative and impact, the facts and accuracy be damned?” </p>
<p>Journalists called out the reporter this time because it was clear as day what happened here. And, after a week or so of questioners being called rape apologists the story officially collapsed and the reporter is in hiding. So, there is that.</p>