<p>I get that, but only to a point. The RS editor was probably giddy with this story, knowing its the kind of thing that could be a career-maker. But the editor would be a fool not to also recognize that a career-maker can also be a career-breaker if it was found to be falsified. And the fact that the editor didn’t even try to verify some of the details is hubris or stupidity (or somewhere in between).</p>
<p>It’s not exactly like they were about to publish a story on marijuana use in Boulder. </p>
<p>The editor is a man who was caught up in the rape victims must always be believed climate. He has so stated, basically. And, he trusted the reporter who has written for them previously. </p>
<p>I think you are referring to one of my posts. I think you have completely mischaracterized what i said. I said that at least one media source was reporting that 2 of Eric Cantor’s sons belong/ belonged to the frat in question. I specifically said I did not know whether or not the source was reputable. I also said that my understanding that neither was a member at the time the rape allegedly occurred. See posts 591, 595, 598.</p>
<p>I also said that I did know know whether or not Jackie’s story was true. </p>
<p>I don’t think I did anything wrong. If you think I did, so be it. Your post implies, however, that I said things that I definitely did not say. </p>
<p>Does anyone else remember the scenes in “All the President’s Men” where the reporters and the editor go over each major point and decide whether to print it based upon whether it can be corroborated?</p>
<p>I re-read the original story. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s still up on the Rolling Stone website. I noticed something I’d overlooked before.</p>
<p>Jackie failed three classes her first semester at UVa. She was called into an academic dean’s office and it was there with her mother present that she first told anyone in the administration of UVa about her ‘bad experience’ at a party. So there’s the possible explanation for the story. How could she explain why she’d failed three classes? Was she about to be suspended? Would giving the rape story excuse her from being suspended? Something to consider. </p>
<p>Also note that she accused Phi Psi fraternity of two other rapes. Neither of the women supposedly raped wanted to be interviewed by Rolling Stone. Is that why she chose to name this fraternity? If they’ve been accused before then they could be accused again and her story would be believed? Is it even true that this fraternity had been accused before? </p>
<p>I never said you said they were involved. But i just don’t get what purpose it serves to even add their names To the discusion.,in the midst of all of this. </p>
<p>The fraternity had one confirmed rape in 1984. Google liz seccuro as i dont have the energy to recount the whole thing. One member confessed and í believe he said he was the only one involved but there was investigation that two others could have been involved but there was never enough evidence to pursue prosecution of anyone else.liz wrote a book about it , does públic speaking, etc.</p>
<p>When I read the story, there were several things that made me say ‘really?’ It wasn’t that I didn’t believe something had happened, but I just found several things hard to believe and figured they were things that Jackie just didn’t know but had guessed at. Three hours? That seemed a long time to me for 8+ boys to be away from their own party with their own guests, no one looking for them. She said the room was dark but that she could see their faces. After all this trauma, she still had her cell phone in her hand (pocket?) and her dress on? Fell on a broken glass table wearing a sun dress, but no blood or glass cuts on her? Was dressed and waiting on the sidewalk for her friends for what, 10-15 minutes at 3 in the morning? </p>
<p>It was just things like this that I would have questioned if I were the editor of RS. This wasn’t a deadline story; they had time to check the facts and run it in the next issue if need be. If those small ‘facts’ couldn’t be confirms, leave them out of the story. Does it matter if the rape took 3 hours or 30 minutes? The little facts are what make the story believable (like eating at the Boar’s Head, working with her date at the rec center, the boy she recognized from her class, etc.) so they are important - IF they can be confirmed. If not, the story would read like an interview, not investigative journalism. Just a ‘Jackie said she was raped by 7 boys in a fraternity house’ article. Worth investigating but not quite the shock value this enhanced version had.</p>
<p>I’m not a lawyer but I think you can say you were raped, but it would be skirting libel to write that a named person is a rapist if they have not been convicted and it would be defaming them to say it in public. If women don’t want to press charges they just need to be cautious with their words in a public manner.</p>
<p>Well, the law applies to everyone if a judge or the law says something is confidential, that means you keep mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard or touchpad. </p>
<p>“I’m not a lawyer but I think you can say you were raped, but it would be skirting libel to write that a named person is a rapist if they have not been convicted and it would be defaming them to say it in public. If women don’t want to press charges they just need to be cautious with their words in a public manner.”</p>
<p>To prove libel you have to be able to prove that the statement in question is not true. If proving that a rape happened is hard, it would be even more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not a rape. The burden of proof is completely reversed.</p>
<p>“You take damage to people and changes they may have to make way too easy for me.”</p>
<p>Who says I’m taking it easy or hard? You said you were concerned Phi Psi members losing their opportunities at grad schools and employers. I think that’s very unlikely, and we’re talking about one line on a resume that will be trivial in most readers’ eyes. My college a cappella group was hugely important to me, and its name was on my resume, but I don’t believe it would have made a jot of difference to grad schools and employers if I’d needed to leave it off due to bad press. It’s also perfectly acceptable to put “Managed charity baseball tournament” or whatever achievement under one’s college activities without identifying the house.</p>
</p>