Post: #1351

Public opinion may be turning against RS
(I just found this looking randomly through reddit, and came back here to see what had happened to this thread)

Post: #1352

Well shit, now Amanda Marcotte, of Duke Lacrosse False Rape Infamy, has weighed in on this. I don't know if she has written anything else about this, if she has I haven't seen it. Which is kinda funny because she is claiming that anti-feminist rape apologists are misrepresenting her views on the whole issue. Maybe they are, but how could you know if she hasn't given her views. I find it very interesting though how she is spinning this. Apparently, according to her, it isn't a big deal because the person that Jackie falsely accused is a fictional person. Never mind the frat members or anyone else who suffered due to Jackie and the RS reporters lies....nope, the real victim in all of this is...wanna guess?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/the-b...ing-about/

Quote:If you haven’t read the report put together by a team assembled at the Columbia School of Journalism regarding the fiasco that was the Rolling Stone reporting on a rape story told by one source, named “Jackie” in the story, I recommend reading it. The report is long but it’s a great primer in what, exactly, it means to say “trust but verify”. It laid out how, exactly, a fabulist can bully and manipulate a reporter, and what precautions reporters need to take to make sure that doesn’t happen. It also made me wonder if this sort of thing has happened before, but it wasn’t caught, because it wasn’t about rape and therefore didn’t have a built-in audience of people eager to catch someone in a lie like the ones Jackie was apparently telling.

As I noted in my piece at TPM about this, there wasn’t much in the report that surprised me. The various reporting and investigation that was released prior to this paints, I think, a fairly solid picture of what likely happened, which is that Jackie was telling a tall tale and even seems to have invented the guy who she claimed was the ringleader in a gang rape. (He seems to have been a composite character, constructed out of pictures of one guy and biographical details from a couple more.) Her friends suggested to the Washington Post that this was a habit of hers, as they suspected her of making up a date with an imaginary friend in order to try to get the interest of a guy who rejected her. Whether or not she made the rape up whole cloth or embroidered/fictionalized a real event remains unknown, though either way, what she did was very wrong.

(An aside from Amanda: It really should go without saying, but I’m already getting rape apologists accusing me of trying to let Jackie off the hook, so for the record: I strongly oppose lying like this, which, even if you don’t intend to hurt people, can cause collateral damage, such as the damage to Phi Kappa Psi’s reputation. However, I do find it interesting that anti-feminists who claim to be so angry about lying would deliberately misrepresent my views and try to imply that I am somehow excusing Jackie’s behavior.)

But while most of the report is known information, I did find this tidbit interesting:

Quote:In December, Jackie told The Washington Post in an interview that after several interviews with Erdely, she had asked to be removed from the story, but that Erdely had refused. Jackie told the Post she later agreed to participate on condition that she be allowed to fact-check parts of her story. Erdely said in an interview for this report that she was completely surprised by Jackie’s statements to the Post and that Jackie never told her she wanted to withdraw from the story. There is no evidence of such an exchange between Jackie and Erdely in the materials Erdely submitted to Rolling Stone.

I remember that detail from the original Washington Post story, because this accusation that Erdely refused to remove Jackie from the story was taken by many, including myself, as further proof that Rolling Stone fucked this whole thing up in every way possible. Here’s the original quote from the Washington Post reporting on this:

Quote:In July, Renda introduced Jackie to Erdely, the Rolling Stone writer who was on assignment to write about sexual violence on college campuses. Overwhelmed by sitting through interviews with the writer, Jackie said she asked Erdely to be taken out of the article. She said Erdely refused, and Jackie was told that the article would go forward regardless.


Jackie said she finally relented and agreed to participate on the condition that she be able to fact-check her parts in the story, which she said Erdely agreed to.

They did reach out to Erdely for comment about this and she didn’t respond, so that’s on her. But the report from the Columbia investigators suggests that this was yet another lie from Jackie. But the fact that this accusation was printed gives me some pause. Unlike Erdely, T. Rees Shapiro seems to have gone into his conversations with Jackie with a suspicion that she was lying about the rape. Under the circumstances, it seems more suspicion was warranted that Jackie would make up more lies to make herself look better. The irony here is that Erdely is the only flesh-and-blood human being that Jackie appears to have falsely accused of anything. But there seems to be very little concern out there regarding this seeming false accusation, against a real person and not a fictional character.

I realize that part of that is that there’s little sympathy for Erdely in all this, though a little more with the report’s reveal of how her editors didn’t give her the guidance and support she needed. But I also think there’s a double standard in play here regarding concerns about false accusations. If we’re going to be angry at a woman for falsely accusing a man who apparently doesn’t actually exist—which we should be, see italicized note above—shouldn’t we also be angry at her for falsely accusing a woman who does exist and can be hurt by her lies?

So, let's get this straight. The real victim in all of this is the RS reporter Erdely who sought out to intentionally, and has done this before apparently, create a sensationalist narrative about evil white guys on campus raping poor innocent girls who are just trying to get an education. Yeah. It really shouldn't surprise me one bit that this is the stance feminist cunts like Amanda are taking. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you looked at her friend circle, she hangs out with and is friends with a lot of prominent feminist bloggers, that you would see that there aren't many degrees of separation between her and someone like Erdely. They are both feminist click bait typists who craft a narrative to fit the agenda of whoever or whatever feminist and far left organization is paying her. This is why she went to bat for Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. All these feminists know each other in real life from blogging, living in the same places and hanging in the same circles, the feminist lecture circuit, or political organizations.

Post: #1353

Here is the other article, referenced in the article above, written by Amanjaw Marcunt:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sorry-...-you-hoped

The article so you don't have to click it (emphasis mine in bold)

Quote:Sorry, Rape Deniers: The Rolling Stone Report Isn’t What You Hoped


After months of anticipation, Rolling Stone has finally released a critical examination, performed by a team assembled at the Columbia School of Journalism, on all the journalistic failures regarding a December story on the problem of rape on campus at the University of Virginia. While the original story, “A Rape On Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, reported on multiple rapes on campus, the centerpiece of her story, an alleged gang rape of a girl named “Jackie” at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, came under special scrutiny.


This report doesn’t have much new to offer on Jackie’s story that hasn’t been dug up by other reporters and by the local police: that her friends dispute her version of events, that there wasn’t even a party at Phi Kappa Psi that night, that Erdely didn’t perform her due diligence in investigating the details that Jackie provided her. But the report is thorough, and it’s a great boon to have all the information in one place.

One thing that’s very clear: The culture warriors who were sharpening their knives, eager to use this debacle as a pretext to make the discussion over campus rape about the extremely rare problem of “false accusation,” will be disappointed. Columbia’s investigators, Sheila Coronel, Steve Coll and Derek Kravitz don’t give succor to anti-feminists claiming false accusations are common, writing, “the magazine's failure may have spread the idea that many women invent rape allegations,” and noting that the false report rate on rapes is low, between 2 and 8 percent.


[Troll King: Feminist doublespeak is kinda amazing when you think about it. In one breath they claim that a full 25%, or one in four, women are raped on college campuses and then in the next they claim that false reports rate low at only 2 to 8 percent. Hell, even at the low end, which was fabricated from whole cloth by feminists in the 70s (namely Mckinnon I believe), 2% false reports out of 25% of women on campus is a lot of men. I did the math awhile back and in 2014 there were ~ 21 million college students with women being the majority. So, to make the numbers easy lets round down to 20, cut it in half and say 60 percent women. This give us 6 million x 2 = 12 million women in college last year. 25% of 12 million is 3 million women who were supposedly raped by feminist statistics. Here is a math question for you, what is 2% of 3 million?

Bonus question, how is that a small number of false rape claims?]


But more than that, what this report makes clear is that “Jackie” makes a piss-poor poster girl for the anti-feminist claim that many rape accusations are nothing more than a woman lashing out at a specific man in retaliation for rejection or some other perceived mistreatment. Because, whatever else she has going on, this report completely eliminates the possibility that it’s a “woman scorned” scenario.


[Toll King: Except of course that one of the people Jackie made up was specifically to make a crush of hers jealous. The next people she made up were supposedly to get sympathy and attention after her crush blew her off....yup, no woman scorned there.]


Not only did Jackie not hand a specific man over to the authorities, but the report suggests that “Drew,” the ringleader of the gang rape Jackie describes, may be a fictional character. (Jackie described him as both a member of Phi Kappa Psi and a lifeguard at the Aquatic and Fitness Center. No such person fitting this description exists.) Instead of trying to bring her supposed rapist to justice, Jackie did everything in her power to stonewall any attempt to find him. When Erdely started to push to find out more about him, the investigators report that “Jackie stopped responding to Erdely's calls and messages.” The silent treatment worked and Erdely capitulated, agreeing not to try to find out anything about this man, at which point Jackie “now chatted freely.”

Jackie has ceased talking to the press—which is just as well, because, as investigators found, she seems to have snookered the Washington Post as well, telling them she tried to get Erdely to retract her story when there’s no evidence that she did—so there’s no way to know what the hell is going on with her. But her behavior is consistent with what experts in the field have reported regarding false rape reports, which is that they are rarely accusations.

“[V]ictims who fabricate a sexual assault report may not want anyone to actually be arrested for the fictional crime,” explain researchers for a report for the National Center for Prosecution of Violence Against Women. “Therefore, they may say that they were sexually assaulted by a stranger or an acquaintance who is only vaguely described and not identified by name.” This makes perfect sense. Fabulists generally do it for sympathy and attention, not because they want anyone to get into trouble. Not to mention that falsely accusing a specific man makes it that much more likely you’re going to be found out.


[Troll King: Two things. First, notice how she is now coining this new term "fabulist"? I find it maddening and amusing at the same time because so many basic bitches these days describe everything they do as fabulous. Also, the fact that they are coining new terms means they that are admitting, in a back handed way, that these things happen and they need a politically expedient way to deal with them. Second, since when the fuck do feminists investigate false rape claims?]

This matters, because anti-feminists are surely going to use this story to cast doubts on rape accusations that have nothing to do with this situation. Andrea Tantaros of Fox News has already tried, using this story to argue that the attention paid to the campus rape issue is “a war happening on boys on these college campuses” and that the accused “no opportunity to confront witnesses and to present a defense.” But how could “Drew,” who appears to be a fictional character, have defended himself? And why would he need to, as “Jackie” never reported this rape in the first place?

Jackie’s apparent lying will certainly be used against future accusers, who accuse specific men of specific crimes. But that is comparing apples to oranges. We have a story about a woman who probably made things up to get attention and sympathy. That doesn’t prove the widespread allegation that women routinely redefine consensual sex as rape to get revenge.

Post: #1354

(04-06-2015 04:38 PM)Troll King Wrote:  Well shit, now Amanda Marcotte, of Duke Lacrosse False Rape Infamy, has weighed in on this. I don't know if she has written anything else about this, if she has I haven't seen it.

She gave her GoodThink opinion in a few articles at the time:

https://archive.today/RYlts

then doubled-down with the Party Line when the story started falling apart.

Melting Down On Twitter

So when this odious, disingenuous Female Typist has the gall to write this:

Quote:If you haven’t read the report put together by a team assembled at the Columbia School of Journalism regarding the fiasco that was the Rolling Stone reporting on a rape story told by one source, named “Jackie” in the story, I recommend reading it. The report is long but it’s a great primer in what, exactly, it means to say “trust but verify”. It laid out how, exactly, a fabulist can bully and manipulate a reporter, and what precautions reporters need to take to make sure that doesn’t happen. It also made me wonder if this sort of thing has happened before, but it wasn’t caught, because it wasn’t about rape and therefore didn’t have a built-in audience of people eager to catch someone in a lie like the ones Jackie was apparently telling.

Then, yeah, she has clearly-earned Toxic Cunt status, and her opinion on anything is utterly-worthless propaganda.

She looks like an unconvincing Tranny. If you could cure Ugly, feminism would vanish overnight.

Post: #1355

@Troll King, "fabulist" is an existing word meaning more or less "teller of tall tales", it's not a new term that Marcotte is introducing.

Regardless, Amanda is flailing a little here and dropping the ball. Jessica Valenti, as always, has the 100% correct Stalinist party line.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...one-report

Quote:It wasn’t Jackie’s job to get the details of her rape correct. It was Rolling Stone’s.

Rolling Stone just doesn’t get it. Months after the magazine published a widely-criticized article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, the details of which proved unverifiable, those responsible still refuse to take any real responsibility. Instead, editors at the magazine once again placed the blame for their errors where it so often ends up when it comes to sexual assault: on a young woman who alleges she was raped.

......

Rolling Stone’s claim that their mistakes all came out of concern for a young rape victim are irresponsible: in the midst of an all-out backlash against so-called PC culture and anti-rape activism, they shirked their real responsibility both to Jackie and to all the victims of sexual assault, and it will have a resounding impact on those working to end sexual violence.

Rolling Stone created a mess for the men and women trying to end sexual violence on campus and off, and it should be the magazine’s job to clean it up. They’ve chosen instead to wash their hands of any wrongdoing – all because of their deep respect for rape victims.

This is the party line: Rolling Stone **failed Jackie** by "failing to do their due diligence" and "fact checking". It is not for the sacred "survivor" (which Jackie is and shall forever remain) to check all those little facts and details.

In other words, a crazy out of control lying bitch who made up slanderous hair-raising stories that are verifiably false and made out of the whole cloth is the victim here -- and as everyone toeing the correct party line, including the Charlottesville Chief of Police, have emphasized, just because no one was "able to substantiate" Jackie's story does not mean that "something terrible" might not have happened to her on that night, or some other night. And of course "survivors" are so traumatized that they get these little details wrong all the time. It is Rolling Stone that "failed" her by "neglecting" to do their "work" -- that is the party line euphemism for hungrily swallowing and publishing obvious crazy lies. So Rolling Stone is to be blamed in "scathing" indictments like the Columbia report, which do not however lead even to anyone at Rolling Stone being fired or held accountable. They just failed to uphold their amazing "standards" but they'll definitely do better next time.

It's a very, very tight rhetorical framework -- Stalin, Zhdanov and co could hardly have made it any tighter.

Post: #1356

AB said:

Quote:Then, yeah, she has clearly-earned Toxic Cunt status, and her opinion on anything is utterly-worthless propaganda.

She looks like an unconvincing Tranny. If you could cure Ugly, feminism would vanish overnight.

What still amazes me is how the more I find out about her and her cronies, the more I am simply amazed that they have the power and resources they do. It is easy to look at her as simply a click bait blogger but she is actually much more than that. She goes on the lecture circuit and does SxS for example. So do all of these feminists, the well known ones like Valenti and the less well known ones. They also have ties to mainstream journalism, political foundations, and so on.

This is why their bullshit, especially when they are all making basically the same point, can spread like wild fire. Amanda is especially a good one to pay attention to. If you see her writing one or two articles about some obscure feminist bullshit, then I guarantee you that there is a high likely hood, probably 90% or so from what I have seen over the past few years, that it is going to blow up and be on CNN within days or maybe a week tops. For example, she was one of the catalysts that got the mainstream to pay attention to gamergate from what I saw at least.

Post: #1357

@Lizard of Oz" "fabulist" is an existing word meaning more or less "teller of tall tales", it's not a new term that Marcotte is introducing."

________________________________________________________________________________​_____________

Yeah, I know. I still think it is funny though. They could pick other terms to label false accusers. Simply put, calling them victims of mental illness would work for their cause more which is why they keep mentioning that. I still think it is funny though. Every time I picture a feminist saying it I imagine a flamboyant gay man or valley girl.

Post: #1358

(04-06-2015 05:38 PM)Troll King Wrote:  They could pick other terms to label false accusers.

'Fabulist' is just a Weasel Word they're using to soften what the accuser is: a 'Liar'.

Post: #1359

Feminists pissed off that a woman wasn't raped.

How very revealing.

Post: #1360

(04-06-2015 05:17 AM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  It looks like some of the sharks on our side are smelling blood.

https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson

He's looking to pull down Erdley, Jackie Coakley, and Emily Renda. He's saying he has evidence that Renda lied about her own (unreported, naturally) assault in order to get herself a job at UVA.

There is no question that Emily Renda is a liar who used her own false rape accusation to make a career in the official "survivor" racket. She was also Rubin Erdely's conduit to Jackie and took the lead in promulgating Jackie's deranged lies (including testifying about them to the US Senate). It would be very valuable if some facts could be brought out that would expose her lies.

This is Chuck Johnson's latest tweet on the subject. We'll see what if anything he actually has.

https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status...0936049664

Quote:Anyone have a phone number for Emily Renda? I'm about to expose her. #RollingStone

Post: #1361

On Megan Kelly a judge said its almost impossible for an organization or group to successfully sue for defamation. Apparently defamation only applies when the person is named.

That just blows my fucking mind. If that's the case, you could publish completely crazy slanderous shit about any company and you can't be sued since it's not an individual person.

It sounds like if this case gets the right judge, RS could get off scot free

Post: #1362

From the most recent NYT story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/busine...ticle.html

Quote:Ms. Erdely is working on another article for the magazine, according to a person with knowledge of the assignment, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Not wasting any time, LOL. That's the way to do it -- concede nothing, admit nothing, make a perfunctory non-apology, and keep going right ahead. Give your very next big story to the writer who should be so discredited that it seems unimaginable she could ever publish another article anywhere. Well, imaginable or not, it's happening, and soon, and right at Rolling Stone.

These people have a strong sense of complete impunity -- and they have excellent reasons to feel that way.

Post: #1363

(04-06-2015 05:30 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Regardless, Amanda is flailing a little here and dropping the ball. Jessica Valenti, as always, has the 100% correct Stalinist party line.

Jessica Valenti is by no means a deep thinker, but even she isn't stupid enough to actually still believe at this point that Jackie Coakley was raped. You can only conclude Valenti is operating in bad faith. Marcotte is practicing a smidgen of intellectual honesty in conceding the allegation was false.

Also, why are we only referring to the fabulist by first name only? We should use her full name of Jackie Coakley.

Post: #1364

(04-06-2015 08:32 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  Jessica Valenti is by no means a deep thinker, but even she isn't stupid enough to actually still believe at this point that Jackie Coakley was raped. You can only conclude Valenti is operating in bad faith. Marcotte is practicing a smidgen of intellectual honesty in conceding the allegation was false.

None of the operations these ladies and their ilk engage in have anything whatsoever to do with "intellectual honesty". Even to say that "Valenti is operating in bad faith" is essentially meaningless, a category error. Would it be correct to say that some expert Stalinist hack, or an editorial writer for the Khmer Rouge, was "operating in bad faith"? It doesn't really capture the spirit and point of what they do.

Jessica Valenti is, in fact, far from dumb and she is very good at toeing the party line as it needs to be at any given moment, and propagating the sort of tight, airless and confident rhetoric that is required for this endeavor.

(04-06-2015 08:32 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  Also, why are we only referring to the fabulist by first name only? We should use her full name of Jackie Coakley.

I like to call her "Jackie" because that is how she appeared to us from the very first pages of Rubin Erdely's breathless narrative, the frat-gang-raped heroine of that absurdist bit of female pornography; I still remember laughing at that story of Jackie's sufferings and brutalization -- which knew no end -- and being impressed that they went quite that far in publishing such fantastical lies. But sure, we all know that Ms. Coakley is the "survivor" we speak of here.

Post: #1365

According to Ben Shapiro, the fraternity has a chance. I don't know if this is credible.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/...ing-stone/

Quote:...

So, how likely is Phi Kappa Psi to win in a lawsuit against Rolling Stone?

Phi Kappa Psi would presumably file suit in Virginia, where the non-existent events supposedly took place. The definition of defamation in Virginia involves publication of an actionable statement with requisite fault on the part of the defendant. Each element of this definition requires further definition. “Actionable,” according to the Digital Media Law Project, means that the statement must be false and harm the plaintiff’s reputation. Virginia also recognizes the concept of defamation per se: defamation by the very nature of the claim. That category includes accusations of criminality that could result in indictment and punishment.

Phi Kappa Psi would, for purposes of defamation, be considered a public figure. That means that the fraternity would have to show not just negligence but malice. Malice is generally defined as reckless disregard for truth or knowledge that the statements were false. It would be difficult to claim that Erdely knew the statements were false – but when it comes to recklessness, it is difficult to imagine a more reckless story. The editors and writer of the story themselves are the sources for their reckless disregard of the truth. Here’s Woods:

Quote: Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim; we honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.

Did her a disservice? What about those she slandered?

Then there’s Erdely herself:

Quote: If this story was going to be about Jackie, I can’t think of many things that we would have been able to do differently. … Maybe the discussion should not have been so much about how to accommodate her but should have been about whether she would be in this story at all.

The story, in other words, was too good to check. And so Erdely went out of her way not to check the story. When she finally asked Phi Kappa Psi for comment, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, she did so by cutting short the narration of the allegations:

Quote: She did not reveal Jackie’s account of the date of the attack. She did not reveal that Jackie said Phi Kappa Psi had hosted a “date function” that night, that prospective pledges were present or that the man who allegedly orchestrated the attack was a Phi Kappa Psi member who was also a lifeguard at the university aquatic center. Jackie had made no request that she refrain from providing such details to the fraternity.

The president of Phi Kappa Psi’s local chapter, Stephen Scipione, later said, “It was complete bullshit. They weren’t telling me what they were going to write about. They weren’t telling me any dates or details.”

The Columbia Journalism Review report, while overwhelmingly sympathetic to the emotional attraction felt by Erdely in reporting the false story, demonstrates conclusively that recklessness lay at the heart of the story. That will be difficult for Rolling Stone to disprove.

Post: #1366

(04-06-2015 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  None of the operations these ladies and their ilk engage in have anything whatsoever to do with "intellectual honesty". Even to say that "Valenti is operating in bad faith" is essentially meaningless, a category error. Would it be correct to say that some expert Stalinist hack, or an editorial writer for the Khmer Rouge, was "operating in bad faith"? It doesn't really capture the spirit and point of what they do.

Jessica Valenti is, in fact, far from dumb and she is very good at toeing the party line as it needs to be at any given moment, and propagating the sort of tight, airless and confident rhetoric that is required for this endeavor.

What I find deliciously ironic is they were hoist by their own "always believe no matter what" petard. Matt Taibbi has said his own experience with RS fact-checkers is that they were always very thorough and pedantic to the point of being a huge pain in the ass, but it was worth it because his stories were better for it. But in this case they were so eager to nail some white frat boys to the wall that they couldn't be bothered to do basic fast-checking and other information gathering techniques...and in so doing fell victim to their prescription to always believe a rape allegation no matter what.

Post: #1367

(04-06-2015 05:30 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  @Troll King, "fabulist" is an existing word meaning more or less "teller of tall tales", it's not a new term that Marcotte is introducing.

Regardless, Amanda is flailing a little here and dropping the ball. Jessica Valenti, as always, has the 100% correct Stalinist party line.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...one-report

Quote:It wasn’t Jackie’s job to get the details of her rape correct. It was Rolling Stone’s.

Rolling Stone just doesn’t get it. Months after the magazine published a widely-criticized article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, the details of which proved unverifiable, those responsible still refuse to take any real responsibility. Instead, editors at the magazine once again placed the blame for their errors where it so often ends up when it comes to sexual assault: on a young woman who alleges she was raped.

......

Rolling Stone’s claim that their mistakes all came out of concern for a young rape victim are irresponsible: in the midst of an all-out backlash against so-called PC culture and anti-rape activism, they shirked their real responsibility both to Jackie and to all the victims of sexual assault, and it will have a resounding impact on those working to end sexual violence.

Rolling Stone created a mess for the men and women trying to end sexual violence on campus and off, and it should be the magazine’s job to clean it up. They’ve chosen instead to wash their hands of any wrongdoing – all because of their deep respect for rape victims.

This is the party line: Rolling Stone **failed Jackie** by "failing to do their due diligence" and "fact checking". It is not for the sacred "survivor" (which Jackie is and shall forever remain) to check all those little facts and details.

In other words, a crazy out of control lying bitch who made up slanderous hair-raising stories that are verifiably false and made out of the whole cloth is the victim here -- and as everyone toeing the correct party line, including the Charlottesville Chief of Police, have emphasized, just because no one was "able to substantiate" Jackie's story does not mean that "something terrible" might not have happened to her on that night, or some other night. And of course "survivors" are so traumatized that they get these little details wrong all the time. It is Rolling Stone that "failed" her by "neglecting" to do their "work" -- that is the party line euphemism for hungrily swallowing and publishing obvious crazy lies. So Rolling Stone is to be blamed in "scathing" indictments like the Columbia report, which do not however lead even to anyone at Rolling Stone being fired or held accountable. They just failed to uphold their amazing "standards" but they'll definitely do better next time.

It's a very, very tight rhetorical framework -- Stalin, Zhdanov and co could hardly have made it any tighter.

Jessica Valenti is right. It was, in fact, Rolling Stone's job to get the details of her rape correct.

This is why everyone involved with the story needs to be fired. Look at it this way: what if Jackie had told them she was abducted by aliens or had no internal organs? Should that have been passed off as fact too?

It still makes Jackie a liar, but there are tons of liars who call newspapers (and magazines) every day, reporting everything from Elvis sighting to alleged mass food poisonings.

When I started as a community newspaper reporter, I'd often get eccentric locals giving me outlandish quotes to suit their own agendas. Once I included one of these quotes in a story. When an editor saw the first draft, he called me into his office.

He read me back the quote and added: "What else did they tell you? The moon was made of cheese? The Brooklyn Bridge was for sale? Do you want to put that in the story too?"

I had to re-write the article and got a lecture on what would happen if I did it again (i.e. I'd get fired). And keep in mind, my screw-up was caught during the editing stage and didn't even make it to print.

That was a lesson to me that you had to verify quotes. If you couldn't verify what people were saying, you had to make damn sure you told the reader directly that this was not fact but a person's opinion. So you used the words "according to."

All of this was in the pre-Internet age, when verifying quotes was difficult. Today, it's a mouseclick away with everyone on Facebook.

Most editors and reporters know to catch outlandish-sounding claims. If my community paper editor knew, how is it that the Rolling Stone staff didn't? They're either ignorant out deliberately out to lie to the public.

Post: #1368

How nice of Rolling Stone to take the moral high ground and lecture us about misogyny in our culture.

Let's all respect women their way.

#RollingStoneOrStrokeMag?

Post: #1369

And I remember many more.

I'm starting to suspect Female Music Artists have nothing else to offer except tits and arse, because it seems to be the way Rolling Stone prefers to whore them out.

Post: #1370

   

Post: #1371

More news on Emily Randa - the "rape survivor" who has seemingly a rape story very similar to the fake Jackie.:

http://gotnews.com/breaking-rollingstone...t-advocate

Quote:The self-described rape “survivor” who introduced a rape fraudster to a Rolling Stone journalist has conflicting accounts of her own alleged sexual assault.

Emily Renda introduced her friend, Jackie Coakley, to Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the disgraced Rolling Stone journalist.

A self-proclaimed ‘sexual assault survivor’ herself, Renda was instrumental in introducing rape hoaxer Coakley to Sabrina Rubin Erdely taking credit for it in an email to UVA administrators: “I’ve been talking to her [Erdely] and focusing her in on positive people to speak with.”

Renda has often called herself a “rape survivor” and is identified as such in the Rolling Stone piece but she has given conflicting accounts that suggest her sexual assault was manufactured.

She told the Washington Post on Nov. 29th that she was sexually assaulted in a dorm room but on NBC she claimed that she was assaulted at a fraternity house.


Renda told her story to Peter Alexander of ABC News who reported that she was “sexually assaulted at a fraternity house on campus”. And yet, the Washington Post states: “Alone and tired, she said that she did not resist the freshman who pushed her out the door offering to walk her home. She joined him in his dorm, where she says he grabbed her by the hair, strangled her and raped her.”

Strangled and raped her. Emily Renda was the victim of an attempt murder, yet failed to report it to the police or campus officials.

Then again, maybe not. Eight months earlier, Renda made no mention of strangling in a Huffington Post article:

“My story is typical. It is ordinary, normal and average. I was a first year student out at a party drinking in the fall, and a guy who insisted on walking me home invited me to hang out in his room, where he forced me down and raped me. It’s not unusual — practically commonplace. And that’s terrifying.”

From a typical forced me down rape to attempt murder by strangulation rape. Which is it Emily?

So essentially her story is attempted murder as a man can quite easily kill a girl if the strangles her to get compliance during rape. And that story is common? Really you would wonder why women go to college at all, if rape waits around every corner? She should study in EE - no one would even think about raping her. She would be completely invisible to the men. Finally at peace she would be.

Post: #1372

The media is now circling the wagons. This is just unbelievable.

The Associated Press' Geoff Mulvihill just wrote a story defending Sabrina Rubin Erdely, saying her writing career is otherwise stellar and the Rolling Stone rape story is a "rare misstep." It's not.

He had to have been acting on orders from high up in AP management.

There is no way a reporter like Mulvihill could not have known that Erdely was also accused of giving Rolling Stone unverified quotes from a bad (i.e. lying) source in 2011. Newsweek even wrote about this. She apparently sent four men to prison with the 2011 Rolling Stone story and on top of that there was a conflict of interest because her husband worked in the district attorney's office!

Are any of you on Twitter? If so, you might want to let Geoff Mulvihill know that there was a Newsweek story from Dec. 2014 that shreds his entire defense of Erdely.

Geoff on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/geoffmulvihill

Link to the Newsweek story that blows his article to pieces:
http://www.newsweek.com/another-rolling-...les-291257

In all my years of media, I've never seen anything like this. Previous cases of journalistic fraud -- from Janet Cook to Stephen Glass to Jayson Blair -- were met with those reporters getting fired and shunned. Why are writers defending Sabrina Rubin Erdely? And why would AP assign a story defending her?

Post: #1373

Guys, I can´t believe what I´m reading. An absolutely Red Pill version of this whole affair, even the Mattress Girl gets mentioned. If you don´t speak German, you can use Google Translate. It´s absolute gold. It´s a blog entry of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Which is probably the most prestigious German Newspaper there is and it wasn´t hidden somewhere on their website, it was in clearly visible on their online front page.

The femicunts fucked up real good this time. This is too much even for the mainstream media.

http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2015/04/06/sch...gung-2513/

Post: #1374

(04-07-2015 03:51 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The media is now circling the wagons. This is just unbelievable.

Unbelievable, but I smell blood.

We need to keep this push going. ROK should comment about this soon enough.

Mulvihill:

Post: #1375

(04-07-2015 06:57 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:51 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The media is now circling the wagons. This is just unbelievable.

Unbelievable, but I smell blood.

We need to keep this push going. ROK should comment about this soon enough.

Mulvihill:

Punchable face.