Here’s the link to the original CC discussion on the Rolling Stones story, back in late 2014:
It’s interesting to see the initial responses, then how the tone started to change, as the Washington Post started to raise questions about Jackie’s story…
Finally, on 12/5/2014, @sevmom would say
.
Satisfying conclusion for the few people here who used their critical thinking skills when they read the RS Erdely article. There was another threading discussing the fake RS Jackie gang rape story. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/17783497#Comment_17783497
I think the crowd with pitchforks aimed at the “pigs” and whose only argument was “women never lie” held on to their belief until a few of us got tired talking to a wall.
I have to say I didn’t believe the Rolling Stone article when I read it on the day published, before all the sanctions started coming down at UVa. If they couldn’t find enough facts to convince ME, just reading an article and ready to accept the facts, how did they expect anyone to believe the story? How did UVa believe the story and take such extreme action (closing the frat, limiting all social activities of all other Greek organizations) without finding a few sources to confirm even the basics?
The one ‘fact’ that had me questioning all the others was that she said she was crashed onto a glass coffee table, had to lie in the broken glass, and then was raped by 5 men over and over? With glass all around, wouldn’t they have all been cut up, knees bleeding, in pain? Wouldn’t there be blood everywhere? Wouldn’t her friends have insisted that she go to the hospital to stop the bleeding from the cuts on her back?
Rolling Stone published a fictional article, and named real people. They should pay the price for that.
I didn’t believe it either for the above stated reasons. The ‘reporter’ was more gullible than a child.
It’s also ridiculous that the papers are still calling the liar “Jackie” instead of using her full name. After all, she was NOT a rape victim, there is no need for the rape-shield laws. She is also an adult.
The reporter wasn’t gullible. The reporter had an agenda and wasn’t about to let alittle thing like facts stand in the way. RS got what was coming their way…they could have headed this off at the pass by admitting there had been little to no fact checking once they allowed it to publish but they didn’t. They earned the check they will ultimately write.
No, the reporter was not gullible. In today’s society people are rarely ever held accountable for what they say. With this lie, “Jackie” has damaged the ability of future rape victims come forward.
The reporter was drawn to tears in her deposition because she felt “Jackie” betrayed her. She betrayed herself by ignoring the obvious risks in taking “Jackie” at her word without doing her research. This is not the first time a member of the media ignored the obvious red flags for their own gain and it won’t be the last. Everyone is looking for that elusive exclusive story sometimes to the detriment of others. Yes…UVA, Dean Eramo and the fraternity have been vindicated but they will be forever linked to this travesty.
This wasn’t a ‘breaking story’ as the events alleged happened more than 2 years before the article was published. No other paper was going to scoop the reporter or Rolling Stone.
Newspapers have a great deal of protection because they often have to report events are they are happening, have to print what they know without time to double and triple check. If they are being honest and facts turn out to be other than as reported, we want them protected IF they used at least a speck of caution, were not reckless. Here they had all the time in the world and printed what would sell papers.
Excellent points both, Momofthreeboys and HappyFace.
As for protection for news organizations, maybe there’s too much protection for them at present. I am loathe to say that the freedom of the press should be restricted but this Rolling Stone case and the matter of Richard Jewell at the Atlanta Olympic bombing bother me.
Jackie Coakley, to my knowledge, was not sued in all this. (Having little or no money is protection against civil lawsuits). I believe that she left UVA and was not subject to any discipline from the university. Of course, any potential employer doing a minimal google search will find her name. Few would be willing to hire a pathological liar.
Yeah, what kind of upside down world do we live in where she can falsely accuse others, cause a media circus, waste taxpayer dollars on an investigation, create an environment that incited students to vandalism against the fraternity…and walk away. Accusations of any kind are serious stuff and I’m very, very happy that the courts are now sitting up and taking notice of all of this. I hope Jackie got some therapy somewhere along the line.
They should just publish her picture–hold her accountable in public.
I thought one of the nicest things the guy she was trying to date and did much of this to impress (she really did call him one night that fall, claim she was attacked on a date, and he and 2 other friends rescued her) said, on the 20/20 segment, was that he really did think something had happened to her at some time, and that he did think she really needed counseling and help. He and the other guy had taken her home, slept on her floor, tried to get her to go to the ER, etc.
I was impressed with how kind he was went talking about Jackie.
I think she is a deeply troubled individual, and I really hope she is able to get effective help. I’ve always thought it likely that there was some traumatizing event in her life. Just not what she described to RS. Very sad story.
BTW, Tawana Brawley is actually having to pay one of the innocent people she accused by name. (Definitely a difference there.) I don’t think she had any money, either.
@twoinanddone I was very impressed with that young man. My issue with the “they must have had a difficult childhood” syndrome is that it is used way too often to justify obliterating someone’s life. Whenever I hear a defendant use the defense of a bad childhood as a reason for taking life it angers me. I know Jackie did not kill anyone but she put so many through pure hell and she just gets to walk away?
2014 was sort of “the peak” for the radical feminists and their rhetoric. 2014 was the year of the 1 in 5 rape hysteria, the Time magazine dedicated to “rape culture” and the soon to be released Hunting Ground movie that ultimately came under close scrutiny. I can understand why someone like a "Jackie’ could surface in that environment …she got attention and she fit the desired portrait of a victim. I can understand why someone like Sabrina Eardley would be interested in an advocacy piece. It does sadly mirror the 1980s day care sex abuse hysteria that spread across the country. I think now, two years later, it is much more clear why it is so important for universities and journalists and self proclaimed documentarians to be careful when examining an accusation of rape. It doesn’t mean that rape or abuse of young children doesn’t occur…it just means take a deep breath and examine the facts, trust but verify. A phrase that struck with me recently is “the politics of a panic” and often times that is a pretty accurate description.
I don’t think malice was difficult to prove. Rolling Stone’s arrogance is unbelieevable. $7.5M is too little. It should be $75M at least.
What is a “radical feminist” better yet who is? Would someone like Gretchen Carlson be considered a "radical feminist now?
On a scale where does a radical feminist fall in comparison to a radical non-feminist?
When a person is accused of rape and subsequently found innocent it doesn’t matter. Just ask Nate Turner. He recently starred in “Birth of a Nation”. During a 60 Minutes interview about the movie the interviewer brought up the matter of Nate being accused of rape in 1999 and whether or not he wanted to apologize for anything since the young lady killed herself in 2012. I don’t know the facts of the case but it has followed him regarding of outcome.
@HappyFace2018 , I suggest you read up on the facts of the case before you excuse him.
@Consolation For the record, I am not excusing him. I am saying it was determined that he did it rape her. That is a fact of the case whether or not you like it. It still follows him was my point.