<p>
</p>
<p>Sure there is. There are plenty of responsible journalists. </p>
<p>Just because the public responds most strongly to partisan trash in the political commentary arena does not mean that there are not people out there who are more responsible. It’s the same thing.</p>
<p>“The reporter is in hiding.” She would have seen the threats and vandalism to the fraternity house after her article came out. She may be concerned for her safety at her own house.She is probably pretty embarrased too at the way this is unfolding.</p>
<p>That’s a shame, and just to clarify what I meant was more like she’s cancelled her public appearances. This was supposed to be the article that made her a star investigative reporter but it’s a become a big fail and one of those journalism black marks now like Justin Blair, Steven Glass, and Janet Cooke. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See my post #932. </p>
<p>This article clearly was not about helping Jackie or getting justice for her, so there was something else behind it. The article was not written for no reason, so there was some agenda behind it. I am sure the reporter at some point will tell what it was.</p>
<p>Só, she is still at her home? The post was a little confusing.</p>
<p>Sorry. I have no clue where she is but she was doing the talk show circuit promoting the article. That stopped and after a few days of standing by the story she stopped responding to the continuing questions and then a few days after that RS stopped defending the story and started blaming Jackie for lacking credibility. Now, slowly they are backing off of that position and taking the blame for publishing it when it was clearly not thoroughly researched or ready to go to print.</p>
<p><a href=“'Rolling Stone' editor: Failure's on us, not accuser”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/05/uva-rape-rolling-stone-editor-tweets/19967283/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that according to Andy, she told him it was oral sex. Which really complicates things and brings Jackie’s credibility into question because it means either Andy is lying, or Jackie told Andy oral sex while telling RS vaginal sex, or RS lied by implying she was vaginally penetrated, or left out the oral sex part. </p>
<p>If is was just oral sex, and she told her three friends it was oral sex, does it make sense that they would talk about taking her to the hospital if she had no visible injuries? Maybe it does; I haven’t really thought that through.</p>
<p>Oral sex I would believe. According to my sons and the CDC a few years ago it’s not uncommon among teens and Jackie was a freshman just out of high school. If she was forced, it’s still a crime. </p>
<p>Many of the same people who were vociferously (and rightfully) arguing that we shouldn’t be condemning the fraternity or anyone else before all the facts were known are now vociferously condemning Jackie - calling her a liar, accusing her of an agenda, calling for her to be sued or even criminally prosecuted, etc. This board overall has been pretty reasonable compared to some of the commentary floating around on the internet.</p>
<p>Based on everything I’ve read, I think it’s likely that Jackie was assaulted in some manner, or certainly that there was some kind of traumatic event that occurred, but honestly I have no idea what the facts are and I don’t think anyone else on this board does either. We may never know. But I fear that the public attack on Jackie will make other victims of sexual assault all the more reluctant to come forward. And regardless of the facts in this particular case, there is no question in my mind that the problem of sexual assaults on campus is a very real one that needs to be taken seriously and addressed.</p>
<p>cosar, I agree with you. There’s more than one reason a story can change. The speaker can be lying, or the speaker’s memory may change over time. This is common with traumatic situations, for witnesses as well as victims. It doesn’t indicate bad character. Different pieces of the traumatic memory may be remembered at different times. Earlier and later recollections can get mixed in. This is inaccuracy, but it isn’t lying.</p>
<p>The ends don’t justify the means. I don’t blame Jackie, I think she was a victim with very poor guidance and got taken advantage of yet again. You can’t make up stuff on the fly when you are accusing someone of something horrific or if not horrific then against the law. I get that some women are traumatized, but then the advocates should be helping with counseling and support to go through the prosecutorial channels. There’s all kinds of reports about why women don’t “want” to either make trouble for the very people they are accusing or can’t stomach the idea of the investigative portion. If all the women shouting, screaming and dragging mattresses around would channel their energies into reform of criminal investigation and support of the victims through that process we might get somewhere. Not only that instead of railing against individual universities perhaps a generation with a united front they might actually accomplish something good. </p>
<p>Whether women want to believe it or not, the vast majority of men “get it.” Probably a bunch of males in that frat and all the other frats on that campus “get it” but women will get nowhere unless they give on that fact - that all men aren’t rapists.</p>
<p>Any number of things could be true at this point. She could have invented the whole thing. Some could be true, some invented. She could have PTSD, some other mental illness or just be a plain old liar. Until some corroborated evidence comes out, if it ever does, it’s all just speculation. </p>
<p>" I fear that the public attack on Jackie will make other victims of sexual assault all the more reluctant to come forward."</p>
<p>I agree that it is bad if she was not truthful, but I don’t see it as any worse than if the young men are lying. That is not true for many, however. </p>
<p>Why do some people consistently show indifference to the long parade of campus rapes, and have a “that’s just the way it is” attitude about men lying about what they did when they are actually guilty. However, if a woman may have lied about something that could be damaging to a man, then they fly off the handle and view it as totally unacceptable. There is an attitude of “She needs to be taught a lesson and get back in her place, she could hurt a man’s career” attitude. </p>
<p>Additionally, there seems to be a higher standard for rape than other crimes. If someone walks out of a store without paying and claims that he was told he could have the items for free, why isn’t that just a “he said, she said” situation? There seems to be an unspoken presumption that women are more likely to lie about rape than people are likely to lie in other situations, but I am aware of no evidence that this belief is actually the case.</p>
<p>Perhaps this will help shed some light on it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.onthemedia.org/tags/rolling%20stone/”>http://www.onthemedia.org/tags/rolling%20stone/</a></p>
<p>What a mess.</p>
<p>“women will get nowhere unless they give on that fact - that all men aren’t rapists.”</p>
<p>I don’t see women arguing that all men are rapists, unless you’re looking in some book of theory from the 1970s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one has called for her to be prosecuted - some (included me) have said IF she is LYING she should be prosecuted. But, I have not read one person calling for her actual prosecution yet. </p>
<p>Well of course the pressure is on her because the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.</p>
<p>Interesting how you gloss over the fact that people, a frat, and a school are being maligned in the process, as if that is OK. </p>
<p>Here is food for thought - before making serious allegations be ready to defend them and have your facts ready to present. This applies to the accusers and the reporters writing about them. The accused, i.e., the potential defendant, is not under gun, the accuser is. The defendant can stay quiet and not defend inaccuracies. </p>
<p>I am beginning to really understand the official police procedure more and more because of this. If you are going to make serious criminal charges, we (police) are not going public or filing actual criminal charges until we are comfortable the accuser is on the up and up, and we have a trustworthy account. That strikes me as a whole lot more useful, mature, and better than this hodge-podge scenario. This is a fishing expedition to find a poster child, not a search for justice of any sort for Jackie.</p>
<p>“Whether women want to believe it or not, the vast majority of men “get it.” Probably a bunch of males in that frat and all the other frats on that campus “get it” but women will get nowhere unless they give on that fact - that all men aren’t rapists.”</p>
<p>I have not heard anyone say that they think this is true. Why do you think that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. But the fact is that she did not write a blog to the world. She told a story – ranging form 100% true to bald-face lie – to a so-called reputable journalism publication. Rolling Stone published the story. They are the bigger issue here. If Jackie had spoken with reputable sources of journalism, her story, such that it is, never would have gotten out (since it is so full of inconsistencies).</p>
<p>We should leave Jackie a pass; its not her fault that she found or was found by a person with an agenda, who also needed a story line for a paycheck. PT Barnun was right, and the RS hired them as editors.</p>
<p>btw: IMO, even if it was a bald-faced lie, I disagree with the idea of prosecuting her. Someone has to be seriously emotionally-disburbed to go that far; she needs counseling and not jail time.</p>
<p>Rolling stone, on the other hand, better have good insurance!</p>
<p>Hanna:
</p>
<h1>508 alh:
</h1>
<h1>528 poetgrl :
</h1>
<p>I’m sure there are other posts I could pull out, but there seems little point. Once again the discussion is dominated by a concern with the possibility men will be disadvantaged. A acknowledgement of rape culture is somehow anti-male. I am the mother of sons. I have not spent one minute of my life worried they will be falsely accused of rape. Not one minute. My husband and sons absolutely believe in rape culture. However, I guess it’s good those who feel differently have a place to connect with each other. </p>
<p>Bay - I agree with much of what you are posting on this thread. I don’t have the time to go back and like all the posts but wanted to be sure and tell you that.</p>
<p>Re: “Andy” as witness to Jackie’s alleged rape
From the link in TatinG’s post #898, Volokh, an American law professor at the UCLA School of Law, stated:
</p>