Rolling Stone Retracts
Posted on December 5th, 2014 in Uncategorized | 88 Comments »
…And I am about to get on a plan to Miami. I’ll be tweeting as I can and will post as soon as I can.
Here’s the Washington Post story that appears to have forced the magazine’s hand.
And I want to digest all this a bit before writing, anyway, so it’s probably just as well that I’m at LaGuardia Airport….
88 Responses
12/5/2024 2:25 pm
Just how many other of the 1 in 5 are delusions of BPD sufferers? We will never know.
12/5/2024 2:31 pm
Bravo! It’s a weak apology, though. It overlooks the fact that RS’s editors flat out lied when they were questioned about the story,and it doesn’t say anything about those song lyrics that were threaded throughout the piece, which no one at UVA seemed to know anything about.
12/5/2024 2:32 pm
HL, that’s an unjustified and immoral comment.
12/5/2024 2:36 pm
Richard, thank you.
12/5/2024 2:40 pm
What is your twitter handle?
12/5/2024 2:42 pm
Thank you thank you thank you Richard Bradley for being a steady force for truth that brought this hoax to light. Thank you for your skepticism and for your courage.
12/5/2024 2:52 pm
You are the man, Richard. Almost no one questioned the story before you did. It’s quite possible that without your efforts the truth would never have come out, and this fanciful story would have forever been accepted as factual.
12/5/2024 2:55 pm
Re the Rugby Road lyrics question:
Here is a Dec 3, 2023 Cavalier Daily account of a campus controversy:
“New coach Mike London was not the only replacement at Virginia football games this year. For the first time since its formation in 2003, the marching band did not perform “Rugby Road” as part of its pregame show, replacing the song’s time slow with the peppy but more modest “Hoo Time.”
This change sparked such controversy that band member Keirstin McCambridge began an online petition before the Nov. 13 home game against Maryland to “reinstate Rugby Road as an integral part of the college football experience,” according to the petition. McCambridge then created a Facebook event to encourage students to sign the petition.”
More from the 2010 article:
“In response, the student organization Feminism Is For Everyone sent University President Teresa A. Sullivan a letter expressing its members’ concern about the song’s portrayal of the University.\n”Throughout the 35 verses, the song continues to degrade and devalue college women and inaccurately portray the men at our university as arrogant, disrespectful and sexually aggressive,” the letter stated.”
35 degrading verses, courtesy of a campus feminist group.
Ms. Erdely relates this in the RS piece:
“Through the decades, the song has expanded to 35 verses…”
Coincidence? Maybe the feminist group indulged the creative writers in their midst. At a different website I found with a quick Google search, there were only 19 degrading verses.
12/5/2024 2:56 pm
And congrats to Mr. Bradley. Well done. And TNR is hiring…
12/5/2024 2:57 pm
Good work. You even got an apology from that Jezebel writer whose name I already forgot.
12/5/2024 3:00 pm
Thank you Richard Bradley. It’s good to know there’s still journalists that don’t give up their critical thinking skills just because a story has the word “rape” in it.
12/5/2024 3:03 pm
Just last night we watched “The Woman Who Wasn’t There”, about 9-11 WTC faker Tania Head.
In talking about it afterwards, we thought that the reason so many people believed and the reason she was able to carry on her hoax for so long, was that she was selling a “perfect” story, one that people really *wanted* to believe; plus her (alleged) personal experience was so heartbreakingly and horribly tragic that even when people started picking up on a few inconsistencies, no one wanted to be *that person* who puts hard questions to such a fragile yet heroic “survivor”, just in case her story *is* true.
As we (along with many others in our local community) had recently been duped by a local woman who claimed to have cancer, but in fact was just making it up, we know that those were the reasons nobody had looked too hard into whether her perfectly tragic tales were true or not.
It’s easy to believe a fabulist’s tales if you *want* to believe, and/or if you don’t want to risk upsetting them any further by asking prying details.
Anyway, that’s just something that popped into my head as I’ve been watching this whole thing unravel.
But I do hope that RS gets the derision they deserve, and I also hope that “Jackie” gets the help that she obviously needs. Please let people be gentle with her.
12/5/2024 3:09 pm
Nah, the kiddie gloves should come off when dealing with privileged mentally ill white women who make a mockery of REAL victims with their BPD and sympathetic culture fueled myth telling. Instead of accepting and enabling mentally ill behavior, they need to be treated with discipline and benevolent authority who can guide them into a healthy state. They are selfishly stealing attention away from REAL victims of abuse and violence with false stories and insanely broad definition of rape and rape culture, that I call rape inflation. Very much like grade inflation has allowed the universities a broader spectrum of students to achieve high scores, this rape inflation has allowed more marginal cases of sexual abuse to be carried under the false flag of rape which has devalued the definition of the word. This devaluation hurts everyone who is a REAL victim.
12/5/2024 3:11 pm
Thank you for daring to ask questions. This started with you
12/5/2024 3:14 pm
As a UVa alum, Richard, I’d like to thank you for bringing questions about this account to light and into the mainstream media. I am disgusted by Rolling Stone’s lack of integrity.
Regarding the Rugby Road song. It’s not a song that’s sung or that students know really. I’ve only heard the first verse during my years there, and that was from a friend whose dad went to UVa in the 70s. They sung it then - it had a couple verses….not the 19-35 referenced. The author used it to further her story and acted like it was some big part of the culture - not the case.
12/5/2024 3:19 pm
Congratulations Richard, the same congrats are due you as to the little boy who noticed the emperor naked.
As in that story, the sad part is why didn’t the “responsible adults” notice earlier.
12/5/2024 3:22 pm
Good job. To bad so much credit is being given to people like Howard Kurtz and Eric Wemple, who never would have questioned the story if you had not first raised questions.
12/5/2024 3:23 pm
Bradley thought it through, gets the real credit, but Sailer amplified it.
Funny thing about the Steveosphere. So many people talk around it its contours are outlined. Like a hole in the ground people don’t want to step in — you know its there by what people avoid.
12/5/2024 3:24 pm
Sir,
I hope I can one day have the opportunity to buy you a drink, to express my gratitude for your strength.
12/5/2024 3:33 pm
Congratulations and thank you!
12/5/2024 3:54 pm
Current Brother,
I hope y’all are doing okay. I can’t imagine how awful it’s been.
wahoo wa,
CS
12/5/2024 3:59 pm
Thanks for having the courage to stand up to a predictable flood of hate. I know your motivation was “good journalism” (always a worthy cause), but as a proud UVa grad - thank you. The inevitable “I had my doubts too” articles will come from dozens of the MSM outlets but readers of this fine blog know the quest for answers began with you.
12/5/2024 4:09 pm
Well done sir! But this is just the tip of a massive iceberg that will continue to rot the social fabric for years to come. But this is a watershed moment in that the truth is coming out shortly after the bogus story appeared (unlike the Duke “rape” case).
These really are the “crimes of their dreams” and the cultural Marxist left will stop at nothing to maintain their narrative.
12/5/2024 4:13 pm
And the slut-shaming continues. Surprise surprise.
@lisacarmack
12/5/2024 4:16 pm
Thank God.
Thankyou Mr. Bradley, if a man of your stature had not shown fair skepticism this may have never happened.
For any of you men that still doubt this narrative you’ve been told about “1-5″ I strongly urge you to research how this figure was contrived and used to set public policy.
No man I personally know would ever do or participate in any form of a rape.
And I doubt very seriously that any man you the reader knows would either.
But because of fear mongering we are all led to believe that “some sickos out there will rape women, not me, and not anyone I know but they exist”
Truly there are sick and twisted men, but the idea that there is a “culture of rape” is as far fetched and as ludicrous as this story which turned out to be a giant hoax.
Go read the comments of these sites that were reporting this as if it were true.
These commenters are LAMENTING the fact it was a hoax.
Can you imagine being disappointed a rape DIDN’T happen?
These people complain that women are “objectified” but how did that view these men at this fraternity? They certainly didn’t even view them as people. They were nameless objects that served their nasty little purpose of perpetuating a bold faced LIE.
There’s no rape culture but their is a culture of victimhood, one where zero accountability is needed and hiding behind alleged trauma get’s you out of any need for evidence.
These feminists are upset that an accusation of rape needs EVIDENCE and not just an accusation to convict a man!
It’s outrageous.
12/5/2024 4:20 pm
Congrats to Richard and Steve Sailer for spearheading this expose.
12/5/2024 4:22 pm
Fisto and Johnny, your misguided agendas are not advanced by this outcome. Nothing about the Jackie situation is generalizable. Every accuser must be heard on her own terms. And my God, NO, you neanderthals, an accuser does not need “evidence” besides her own word. Her word — her testimony — her story — IS evidence.
That does not mean the accused is always guilty, by any means. I was involved in cases on both sides. But the accuser’s word is usually more credible, for objective reasons, than the attacker’s story, and can usually be corroborated with outside details. That is more than enough.
Testimony is evidence. It is disgraceful of you to claim that it is, categorically, untrustworthy. Shameful behavior.
12/5/2024 4:24 pm
Mr. Bradley - thank you thank you thank you! So grateful for all your efforts, and I think you may already have the foundation for a great book. The entire UVa community would buy it, and it would become required reading for every journalism class in what not to do!
The backlash is going to be a doozy on this one. Students are already writing in to the Cavalier Daily demanding that Jackie stand for an Honor Trial - UVa has the Honor Code, which governs student life - no lying, cheating, or stealing. If a student is found guilty, the penalty (at least it used to be) is expulsion.
And lastly - “Your Rape - Is it Clickbait? Does it Pop?” kind of sums it all up - Erdely went victim shopping, until she found one splashy enough. . .
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/04/your-rape-is-it-clickbait-does-it-pop/
12/5/2024 4:35 pm
Not so fast. Read the Washington Post article. There was a fraternity member who was a lifeguard and who knew Jackie. He was not Phi Psi, however.
It is not over until it is over. I sincerely hope for Jackie’s sake that she was not assaulted in the manner in which the assault was depicted in Rolling Stone. In her address to students, President Sullivan wore a bracelet given to her by a rape victim. Then she vowed to fix the problem of sexual assault on the Grounds.That is really something to be proud of at Mr. Jefferson’s university.
12/5/2024 4:41 pm
My wife went to a large Southern school in the early 2000s (not UVA) with a big Greek scene. Her sorority had about 80 members. I asked her and she had not only never heard of any of her sisters getting raped there, not even a rumor of it (and the slightest rumor would have spread throughout the sorority). So much for “1 in 5.”
I seriously doubt there is a “campus rape epidemic.” What does it say that an ideologically motivated, experienced journalist went combing the land for a story about it and wound up with this Rolling Stone story?
12/5/2024 4:42 pm
My wife went to a large Southern school in the early 2000s (not UVA) with a big Greek scene. Her sorority had about 80 members. I asked her and she never heard of any of her sisters getting raped there, not even a rumor of an incident (and the slightest rumor would have spread throughout the sorority). So much for “1 in 5.”
I seriously doubt there is a “campus rape epidemic.” What does it say that an ideologically motivated, experienced journalist went combing the land for a story about it and wound up with this Rolling Stone story?
12/5/2024 4:42 pm
@UVa77
Unfortunately, no one has any reason to believe anything Jackie says now that she has contradicted herself multiple times. She blew it by not being truthful.
12/5/2024 4:47 pm
Sorry for the double post. One other point: RS says they’re taking this seriously in that weak “Note to our Readers,” but go look at their site: the note went up just 5 hours ago but is already just buried in a bunch of nonsense about country award nominations. They’ve also closed comments and scrubbed the ones that were already there!
I’ll be surprised if Phi Psi doesn’t literally own RS after this.
12/5/2024 4:49 pm
Regardless of what Jackie told them, RS and Erdely are simply liars. Farhi’s Nov 28 piece in WaPo: “Erdely spent weeks corroborating details of Jackie’s account.” Statement from RS (courtesy Erik Wemple): “Through our extensive reporting and fact-checking…” What did they fact-check? Was was corroborated? Is there a single fact, other than Jackie being a lifeguard, that RS or Erdely can point to as accurate?
12/5/2024 5:03 pm
There are two groups of people damaged by the RS article: the real victims of sexual assault and the members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVA.
I am not a UVA alum but, in following the news stories, it was clear that the University responded with knee-jerk damage control. Both the UVA administration and it’s faculty’s apologized to Jackie quickly after the publication of the RS article. Where’s the apology for abandoning the Phi Kapp Psi members and rushing to judgment?
The fraternity should be reinstated immediately. The faculty now looks a little silly for suggesting all Greek life should be banned for this school year. With two suicides, a murder and a factually faulty accusation of rape this fall, let the student body look forward to something positive in the spring.
12/5/2024 5:05 pm
SE
But the accuser’s word is usually more credible, for objective reasons, than the attacker’s story, and can usually be corroborated with outside details.
But what happens when it is not corroborated. What happens when sex occurs, there is heavy drinking involved, then the coed says she was raped. Oh and there were vaginal bruises. Rough consensual sex or rape. And who knows except the two of them.
12/5/2024 5:14 pm
As a survivor of sexual assault (really, as a very young teen), I thank you, Richard, for thinking critically about this whole story. Obviously I’m somewhat sensitive to the whole issue and I am saddened, disgusted, horrified by this insulting debacle.
Women and men do survive abuse and assault and it’s a hard thing to talk about. Fantabulous tales like this don’t help those of us who really *were* assaulted.
Readers: Please, please, don’t use this story to jump to the conclusion that women routinely make up assault stories. I never have lied about my story, but then I don’t talk about it much. And, well, my story is so dull that it would never make the pages of RS, so perhaps it’s a little more credible in the first place.
12/5/2024 5:39 pm
She lied but there sure seems like something go on behind the scenes. Unless something like this actually occurs, the fact they couldn’t come out with an INSTANT DENIAL points to something other than complete innocents. ” We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence. “
12/5/2024 5:46 pm
I completely agree with Not So Fast - Jackie’s id of Phi Kappa Psi was based on her friend pointing it out to her as the rape site a year later. If she ran out of some other frat (there are some nearby) when she met her friends on the night in question, they might not know where she had been.
So play journalist - was the lifeguard/frat guy in a nearby frat? The WaPo doesn’t say. Does he match the physical description? The WaPo talked to him by telephone and makes no mention of checking yearbook photos
Oh, and he denied knowing Jackie. ABSOLUTELY probably true, but did they really expect him to say “Gee, thanks for calling, yeah, I led that gang-rape that has horrified the nation”? Or, what would ted Bundy say?
The WaPo left some obvious loose ends.
12/5/2024 5:54 pm
@Anonymous — “Please, please, don’t use this story to jump to the conclusion that women routinely make up assault stories.”
You’re 100% correct. It’s no more fair to use this story to claim that /women routinely make up assault stories/ than it it was for people to use this story (before its debunking) to claim that /fraternity men routinely gang-rape college women/.
12/5/2024 5:56 pm
It was inept journalism from the beginning. A good journalist, regardless of the topic, would have confirmed the facts from a 360 degree view…letting the chips of the story fall into place naturally or dissolve. She wished her story into existence and her editors failed to stop it. Rolling Stone has no credibility. The damage done is incalculable. The more horrific story, I think…is asking the question “who is graduating these “journalists”, and then who on earth is hiring them?
12/5/2024 6:01 pm
congratulations to richard and to steve sailer. hell yeah.
12/5/2024 6:18 pm
Sorry, I completely agree with UVa77 - the WaPo left some obvious loose ends, as described above.
That said, there is not enough scorn available to heap upon Erdely and the Rolling Stone.
And of course, props to Mr. Bradley for starting this.
12/5/2024 7:02 pm
There is also this story about the facts of the college rape story in Lena Dunham’s book not adding up and potentially pointing a finger at an innocent man:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/03/investigation-lena-dunhams-republican-rapist-story-falls-apart-under-scrutiny
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/12/04/like-holocaust-denialism-slate-writer-blasts-breitbart-over-dunham-piece
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/04/WaPo-Dunham
12/5/2024 7:06 pm
@Laurie Brown: You asked who is graduating these journalists.
Believe it or not, by her own account Sabrina Rubin Erdeley was a classmate of Stephen Glass’.Yes, that Stephen Glass, the journalist who had taken in Rolling Stone among others back in the day with a hoax or two (40 I think!).
A few moments ago, I suggested on another site that Rolling Stone track down which Prof told them facts were optional in their profession so they could screen out future employees and avoid any future embarrassments.
But just the other day the NYTimes quoted a couple of J School profs around the country who insisted that journalists had no ethical obligation to get the other side of the story from the accused even if only to confirm they existed!
I wonder if they’d say that if their son, brother or friend is ever accused of sexual assault?
12/5/2024 8:01 pm
I take no satisfaction from today’s retraction in Rolling Stone. It’s just sad: sad so many people got dragged through the mud; sad a young lady is so disturbed as to perpetrate this hoax; sad that a school overreacted and group punished by fiat; sad a national publication was so easily and completely duped; sad that an entire community of kids was threatened out of their home; and sad that the people and institutions we rely on for sanity in times of crisis failed us so miserably. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the most mature people in this mess were the so-called frat rats?
12/5/2024 8:30 pm
Brandon,
The active brothers would have no way of knowing what did or didn’t happen in that room. The people living in the house at the time, the then third years, graduated last spring.
The lack of an initial denial should not be construed as guilt.
12/5/2024 9:09 pm
@ Brandon
“the fact they couldn’t come out with an INSTANT DENIAL points to something other than complete innocents.”
No it doesn’t. It could just as easily be a manifestation of honesty and care with the facts. No organization is going to be able to account with 100% certainty for the activity and whereabouts of each of its members at all times. Not as a direct witness.
@ Current Student
Second years don’t live in the house?
12/5/2024 9:51 pm
“I completely agree with Not So Fast – Jackie’s id of Phi Kappa Psi was based on her friend pointing it out to her as the rape site a year later. If she ran out of some other frat (there are some nearby) when she met her friends on the night in question, they might not know where she had been.”
Tom - that raises another question about Jackie’s story. So, completely sober, she went to a party with a date without discussing or noticing which frat house it was? An event for which she was so excited that “she had taken three hours getting ready?” And, she never tried to piece together where it was that she was brutally assaulted by 7 men while 2 other man watched? Not to mention that the issue isn’t simply the wrong house, but also that the alleged “Drew” named by Jackie was a member of a different fraternity. So, outside of going to the house itself, she also presumably would have known the name of this guy’s fraternity.
Don’t forget the original concerns that the author of this blog raised about the alleged gang rape scene. Specifically, the story details a series of possible but highly improbable elements combined with one another (all of this occurring on a floor strewn with broken glass from a table, a premeditated gang rape by a group of 9 men, Jackie leaving unnoticed through a party full of people after a 3 hour gang rape, Jackie apparently never going to a hospital).
Additionally, as noted by Allison Benedikt and Hanna Rosin at Slate: “She tells Erdely that she was smashed into a glass coffee table and raped by a beer bottle. Drew, who had invited her to the frat party as his date, allegedly stood by and orchestrated the whole thing. When he later ran into Jackie, she says that he told her he’d had a ‘great time.” That’s not expected behavior even by the standards of rapists. That’s psychotic.”
Or, as noted by several people digging into this story: that the supposed reaction of Jackie’s friends, after being told that she’d just been gang-raped, was to say, “Oh, better not report that. Reporting that might keep us off the invite lists to the cool frat parties.”
The point is that this whole story was so incredible - in the sense of difficult to believe - that there’s no reason to believe it once some of the important details are found not to be true.
Is it possible that Jackie was in fact sexually assaulted, perhaps even gang raped under circumstances different from the story? That is possible, and somewhere along the way this story turned into the fictional account that we read in Rolling Stone. Is it also possible that she’s a Tania Head type, who completely made up this story? That’s also possible, as are many other explanations somewhere between those 2.
Here’s the point - Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone published this article without checking the few verifiable facts that would give us confidence that this event occurred. As Mr. Bradley pointed out - one of the basic reasons to contact the two alleged perpetrators who could be identified is to verify that they exist. Another is to see if facts about them are consistent with Jackie’s story. A different fraternity is a major discrepancy. (Not to mention that SRE and RS are ruining the reputation of whatever fraternity they name, so need to be damn sure that they are right.) How would Jackie’s story have changed if she’d been pressed on discrepancies like this one? Would other parts of it have changed? Would the whole thing have unraveled as individual pieces were fact-checked?
12/5/2024 9:58 pm
@Brandon
“the fact they couldn’t come out with an INSTANT DENIAL points to something other than complete innocents.”
I agree with Anon - it shows nothing of the sort, other than that they actually do want to be sure that their denial occurs only after an inquiry into the facts. Also, keep in mind that this allegation concerned an event in September 2012 and provided no names of the alleged perpetrators. To investigate a 2 year old event that was allegedly committed by any member of this fraternity who was a junior that year takes a certain amount of effort. Especially so because that year’s junior class would have graduated earlier this year, so it’s not simply a case of dealing with fraternity members still currently in the house.
12/5/2024 9:59 pm
As a survivor of child sexual abuse, i know what being a sex abuse survivor is like. Ptsd, still with me.
And as an adult being falsely accused & convicted, i can see the trauma of false accusation & false conviction.
.
I do dream of a perfect world where no one is a victim of sexual crimes (man or woman - equality means equal concern - not only focused on women) and no one is falsely accused/convicted of sex crimes.
Excellent journalism here.
My neighbor stole my car and the police wont believe me.
Asked when you saw it last, i told them 1973 (and i saw who took it).
Who called this rape inflation?
Best term i have heard.
In that case, rape inflations survivors would be the duke lacrosse players - no conviction.
And so many who’ve been exonerated by the great work of yhe innocence project via dna exoneration should be called rape inflation victims - those falsely convicted due to overly broad definition or a zealosness to convict where evidence is scant to non-existent.
Richard, your sensitivity on this matter is amazing.
I have great respect for actual victims/survivors, but those who lie, exaggerate or fabricate make real victims go through more trauma than necessary.
Remember, justice is not always about punishment, but also to prevent future victims.
Bill cosby’s first five accusers testimony, combined, any 3, would corroborate each others story with regard to M.O, etc. Of course, if true, all five not making an accusation means 5 or 10 or more, in this case women, also become victims.
Society & institutions are unable to act when no accusation is made.
Title IX, supposedly about gender equality is a horrid joke with respect to sexual allegations of impropriety.
I will visit this blog continuously to see if the author could examine the kind of training administrators get to adjudicate these cases.
Everything i have read says they’re entirely misandric
12/5/2024 10:02 pm
While the Post didn’t actually prove the negative, think about what they have elicited. Jackie now claims she hadn’t known for a year what frat it was that she’d willingly and soberly walked up to with her date that evening. She gave a name for the lifeguard, but not only isn’t it the name of a member at the frat she spoke of, it’s not even the name of a lifeguard. It’s merely similar to the name of a lifeguard. Which sounds like exactly what you’d do if you had made things up and your story was starting to unravel. Scramble to give details that have some verisimilitude so that you can get off the phone.
They also spoke to her roommate, who didn’t remember anything in particular about late September, merely saying that Jackie had been acting depressed in the fall, and that she told her the story in January, months later.
But in the RS story, several friends learned that night, and loads of people were talking about it - telling her to take it easy, etc.
At this point, with all these holes, I see little reason to grasp the fraying thread of “something traumatized her that night”. Everything points to the story being fabricated.
12/5/2024 10:05 pm
People do rant. Women, too, sometimes.
People also get hysterical, sometimes, including men.
There is both rape hysteria and rape inflation, simultaneously.
The drivers of the movement will deny they are hysterical and they will deny they got mad that you, richard, were not also hysterical.
History doesnt repeat. It rhymes
12/5/2024 10:34 pm
Something *truly awful* has overlooked. Here is what UVa President Teresa Sullivan saw fit to say in light of today’s shocking revelations:
Teresa Sullivan said the school “will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.”
The university’s president said in a statement Friday that doubts about the story “must not alter” its focus on the issue of sexual violence on college campuses.
*******************
Teresa Sullivan says not a word about the **9 men** who were alleged to be violent psychopathic rapists and abetters of rape.
These are her students and she abandoned them.
Teresa Sullivan abandoned 9 of her male students to these historic calumnies and offers not a word in their defense. It is as if their lives and reputations are utterly meaningless trivia to her. They are the worthless and expendable “frat bros,” beneath contempt, not even entitled to a word of support from the woman who is their supposed steward.
Again. Teresa Sullivan abandoned 9 of her male students, accepted at face value the most extraordinary allegations, and has said nothing in defense of these men, young men at the University of which she is President. She *must* resign.
She must resign.
12/5/2024 10:37 pm
^^^
has *been* overlooked
12/5/2024 10:57 pm
This is the very last line in the Wash Po piece from earlier today. Remember they are the only ones who have talked to Jackie besides Rolling Stone. They have been talking to her all week. And they chose this as their closing paragraph.
She is making everything up…every single word.
“He never said he was in Phi Psi,” she said, while noting that she was positive that the date function and attack occurred at the fraternity house. “I know it was Phi Psi, because a year afterward, my friend pointed out the building to me and said that’s where it happened.”
LINK
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-rolling-stone-failed-in-its-story-of-alleged-rape-at-the-university-of-virginia/2014/12/05/169764a0-7cae-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
12/5/2024 10:57 pm
This is the very last line in the Wash Po piece from earlier today. Remember they are the only ones who have talked to Jackie besides Rolling Stone. They have been talking to her all week. And they chose this as their closing paragraph.
She is making everything up…every single word.
“He never said he was in Phi Psi,” she said, while noting that she was positive that the date function and attack occurred at the fraternity house. “I know it was Phi Psi, because a year afterward, my friend pointed out the building to me and said that’s where it happened.”
12/5/2024 11:00 pm
@at long last, you moron, those men don’t exist. What’s your malfunction?
12/5/2024 11:08 pm
SE,
I don’t think you understood my post. Until today, Teresa Sullivan **assumed that these men existed**, and were participants in a savage rape.
That is why she moved immediately to suspend the fraternity.
She did this without the least evidence that such allegations were true. She abandoned these *alleged* 9 male students — just as surely as if they existed. And, by extension, she abandoned all the men of that fraternity, suspending their operations — as if she very definitely believed they existed.
Even in the light of today’s incredible revelations, she insists the “focus” must be on “the issue of sexual violence.”
She has abandoned her male students to infamous lies and calumny, and without the least reason for doing so.
She must resign.
12/5/2024 11:21 pm
It seems that others feel the same way:
CebVA 28 minutes ago
I am disgusted by the attitude of UVA President Sullivan who immediately assumed her students were guilty. Thanks for sticking up for us. Even now she is insisting the culture of UVA must be changed because of a lie.
12/5/2024 11:47 pm
I just posted this at the Cavalier Daily, though I doubt they will publish my comment.
I’m a 1988 UVa grad with High Distinction and an Echols Scholar. I worked at the CD for 2 years and then the University Journal (which no longer publishes). And I am getting pretty pissed off about your weak-ass coverage. I am embarrassed by your performance these past 2 weeks.
I would like the writers of the CD to do some real fucking reporting:
1) Find out who the 3 friends are who counseled Jackie not to report the rape, and talk to them. Soon. They are an extremely important part of finding out if Jackie’s story is true.
2) Go deeper into the broken bottle over Jackie’s face — that was never reported to the police. Did that really happen?
3) Find out who the alleged rapist is from her Anthropology class. Does he exist?
What the hell is going on in your newsroom. Why are you being scooped by the Washington Post. Why aren’t you interviewing Jackie. You’ve got about 500,000 alumni out here who want to know what the fuck happened. Get some answers. Stop with this useless bullshit you continue to publish.
Find out what the fuck did or did NOT happen that night. Get to the bottom of this story. I have been checking this site daily for 15 days, and NOTHING. You guys haven’t provided diddly squat.
We are waiting for answers.
Excuse my language, but goddamnit somebody needs to do some real reporting.
A Former CD Editor
12/6/2024 12:05 am
@ SE
@at long last, you moron, those men don’t exist. What’s your malfunction?
They surely do, and there are more than 7 of them. The Sabrina Rubin Erdely story implicated ALL Virginia Phi Psi’s. This was impliedly a ritual rape as part of their initiation process.
12/6/2024 12:14 am
It really does seem to show a deep moral deficiency in the President of UVA that she has said nothing to express any concern for the members of Phi Kappa Psi and other fraternities, who have hung under the vicious false accusation of being rapists, and in no small part because of her own action to suspend their activities, which gave credence to those accusations.
What kind of moral monster doesn’t understand how damaging such a accusation is for a student?
Really, she should be forced to resign for her utter moral callousness.
12/6/2024 12:36 am
Kudos, Richard, for rolling the snowball that turned into an avalanche. Glad you stood your ground amid all the taunts and vitriol from those blinded by some sort of doctrinal faith in Rolling Stone and the claims that we live in a culture of rape.
The tragic irony of Rolling Stone’s story is that legitimate survivors of rape may not be taken as seriously both on campuses and beyond.
Many questions remain about Rolling Stone’s reporting and what transpired behind the scenes…It would be in the magazine’s best interests to be as transparent as possible about the lapses in its fact checking and reporting. And for the magazine to own up to its faults rather than laying the blame all on Jackie as its statement does.
Earlier this week, the magazine claimed it had spent “months” on “extensive reporting and fact-checking.” And yet it now transpires that they didn’t even verify even the most basic facts of Jackie’s allegation, such as whether the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity had a date night function or a party that night. Or whether the fraternity’s initiation ceremony for new pledges was in the fall (turns out the university has a spring rush). It should’ve been easy, too, to check whether any members of the fraternity worked as a lifeguard at the pool.
Here’s an important observation about all this by Peter Suderman at Reason magazine’s blog:
——-
Indeed, it appears that not only did Erdely not contact the accused, she did not know the full name of the alleged primary assailant. “Earlier this week,” today’s follow-up in the Post says, “Jackie revealed to friends for the first time the full name of her alleged attacker, a name she had never disclosed to anyone.” Emphasis on never and anyone. Unless the Post’s follow-up report is mistaken, then that includes Erdely and the fact-checkers at Rolling Stone.
Yet that is not what Woods, the editor on Erdely’s story, said earlier this week. “We verified their existence,” he said to the Post, indicating that the magazine had checked with Jackie’s friends. “I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were.” If Jackie had truly never revealed the name of the attacker to anyone, then what Woods said cannot have been true.
—————-
So, has Woods been fired or, at the very least, disciplined in any way?
Indeed, will Rolling Stone take any action against Sabrina Rubin Erdely? Will she pen an apology or return the fee she was paid for the article? Will there be any consequences for her actions? Recall that she not only wrote a story in which her agenda blinded her judgement but she also later defended the quality of her reporting when others began to doubt Jackie’s story. Her lack of humility in owning up to her lapses of judgement is galling.
Moreover, Rolling Stone ought to reveal a public autopsy on the article, revealing what it did and did not know.
Beyond that, how about a stronger apology to all those affected by the damage of the article? Editor Will Dana’s note was weak tea.
Dana seems to have thrown Jackie under the bus instead of taking it on the chin and offering a full mea culpa.
Later, on Twitter, editor Will Dana wrote, “We should have either not made this agreement with Jackie…” “…or worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.” “That failure is on us – not on her.”
He should have said words to that effect in his “Note to Readers.”
And the magazine should reveal what it has done internally to redress matters.
Alas, not everyone seems willing to concede just how much of a mistake Rolling Stone has made. On Twitter, many defenders of the magazine continue to claim that the magazine’s errors is a sideshow and a minor detail in all this.
For kicks, take a look at the Twitter account of Jeff Sharlet, a contributing writer to Rolling Stone, GQ, Harpers. He defended Rolling Stone (even after its admission) in a ranting series of 30-plus tweets such as these:
“Real damage here is done by 1) rapists 2)admins 3)denialists 4)reporting errors. In that order.”
“but why should we not blame the denialists before attacking the editor, who tried, with errors, to bring light to the story.”
“Denialists,” according to Sharlet, are those who don’t believe Jackie was raped.
She may well have been raped which, if true, is awful. But her story is shot through with contradictions and utterly unbelievable claims that surely amount to fabrications. I’m not sure, now, what basis anyone has to claim that she was raped. From what we know from The Washington Post’s reporting, there’s scant few details by which any of Jackie’s defenders can use to back up her claim. How do they know she was raped? Which isn’t to say that she wasn’t raped - it’s certainly possible. But, from what has been reported, there’s scant few details that one could point to to verify her claim.
I’d say Jeff Sharlet is the one in denial.
Yet Sharlet retweeted this gem by a guy named Siva Vaidhyanathan (author of “The Googlization of Everything”):
“It does not matter if Jackie’s story matched the facts. Trauma does that. Rape remains the greatest threat to student health and safety.”
(If Mr. Vaidhyanathan did some Googling, I’m sure he’d discover that over-consumption of alcohol is a greater threat to student health and safety.)
I hope Jeff Sharlet’s tweets don’t reflect the culture at the magazine he contributes to. I’d like to think they’ve learned something in all this about seeking the truth first and foremost as a journalist.
It’s ok for journalists to have biases and worldviews. Unavoidable, actually - every journalist (and human being) has biases. Journalists should admit them honestly to readers. Then they should convince readers of the truth in their reporting by backing up their claims by rigorous adherence to facts. And they should be humble enough in their search for truth to reassess those biases and worldviews when the facts confound them.
12/6/2024 12:44 am
>Moreover, Rolling Stone ought to reveal a public autopsy on the article, revealing what it did and did not know.
Oddly, the Times says that Rolling Stone’s lawyers had no problem as long as the alleged rapists weren’t named. They’re going to be schooled by the Phi Psi lawyers, and the frat is going to find itself the owner of a hip music publication in the next couple years. I think that’s why you’re not going to see a ‘public autopsy’ of the story. It would advance the date of the public autopsy of Rolling Stone.
12/6/2024 1:07 am
I’m sure something did happen to Jackie — just not what’s described in the beginning of the article.
You must be so excited! You were the first one to call bogus. That’s awesome. Congrats.
12/6/2024 1:48 am
SE
‘Testimony’ as offered in the RS article (i.e.: anonymous, uncorroborated allegations) is NOT evidence. SWORN testimony, in a court of law, with due process and the right to face one’s accuser (and the minimal requirement of identifying one’s assailant)….THAT is evidence.
Thank you, Richard, for restoring a measure of professional honor to the practice of journalism
12/6/2024 2:44 am
Someone above (anonymous) asked if second years live in fraternity houses.
At UVa, It’s typically third years that are usually required to live in fraternity/sorority houses. In fraternities, given that they have less members than sororities (when I was there, 16 sororities vs. 32 fraternities), often times many 4th year fraternity guys will live in their houses too.
It’s more uncommon for 2nd years to live there, considering that rush is in the spring semester and most people plan their living arrangements for the next year during their first semester.
12/6/2024 3:04 am
Die “heilige Lüge”
the “holy lie”
Dem Gläubigen steht es nicht frei, für die Frage “wahr” und “unwahr” überhaupt ein Gewissen zu haben: rechtschaffen sein an dieser Stelle wäre sofort sein Untergang.
the believer is not free to have any conscience at all for questions of “true” and “untrue”: to have integrity on this point would at once destroy him
12/6/2024 3:08 am
die Fanatiker sind pittoresk, die Menschheit sieht Gebärden lieber, als daß sie Gründe hört
the fanatics are picturesque ; mankind prefers to see gestures rather than to hear reasons
Nietzsche
12/6/2024 4:47 am
if you know the red pill, you know that we cannot hold women accountable, we need to hold men accountable. white knights like sean woods (SRE’s editor), will dana (RS managing editor), and jann wenner (RS publisher) are the real problem. these men are so racked with male guilt that they will do anything to attack and hurt their own gender. it all stems from self loathing and hopes for atonement, for their own “sins” and for the sins of all men throughout history.
12/6/2024 4:49 am
[…] my comment on richard bradley’s blog: […]
12/6/2024 8:38 am
NEW DETAILS
The Washington Post has added several new details this morning. They have been added to yesterday’s story. They finally spoke to her friend “Andy” who she called the night of the alleged rape.
—
ORAL SEX
A student identified as “Andy” in the Rolling Stone article said in an interview with The Post Friday night that Jackie did call him and two other friends for help a few weeks into the fall semester in 2012. He said Jackie said that “something bad happened” and that he ran to meet her on campus, about a mile from the school’s fraternities.
The student, who said he never spoke to a Rolling Stone reporter, said Jackie seemed “really upset, really shaken up” but disputed other details of that article’s account. Rolling Stone said that the three friends found Jackie in a “bloody dress,” with the Phi Kappa Psi house looming in the background, and that they debated “the social price of reporting Jackie’s rape” before advising against seeking help. He said none of that is accurate.
“Andy” said Jackie said she had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to perform oral sex on a group of men, but he does not remember her identifying a specific house. He said he did not notice any injuries or blood but said the group offered to get her help. She, instead, wanted to return to her dorm, and he and the friends spent the night with her to comfort her at her request.
“The perception that I’m gravitating toward is that something happened that night and it’s gotten lost in different iterations of the stories that have been told,” said the student who requested anonymity. “Is there a possibility nothing happened? Sure. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.”
12/6/2024 9:08 am
Real reporting. And a story that gets directly at the truth with a so-called “fresh complaint witness.”
I am very strongly inclined to believe what Jackie told Andy was true. It fills in the missing cause for her sudden decline.
Thank God Andy is on the record.
12/6/2024 9:15 am
SE
Yes the Washington Post is doing a great job. I am trying to get the news out on twitter that “ANDY” has finally spoken.
So it was group oral sex that Jackie reported to her friends that night. It was NOT gang rape as Rolling Stone reported.
12/6/2024 9:35 am
Facts are finally coming together. Now we know why, according to the Washington Post, Jackie told Rolling Stone that she would only allow the story to be published if she, Jackie, could control the fact-checking of her part of the story.
Jackie didn’t want Rolling Stone or anyone else to talk to her 3 friends from the night in question. Why? Because those 3 friends would have told a very different story.
“Andy” says it was oral sex.
Details here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
12/6/2024 9:39 am
Thank you for standing up against all the hysteria and media frenzy that refused to believe anything other than what RS decided to print. The link to the original article now takes the reader to the apology from Will Dana. You were needlessly attacked on a personal level by several blowhards and I’m proud you took the high road in all these exchanges. You are an inspiration
12/6/2024 9:45 am
Facts are finally coming together. Now we know why, according to the Washington Post, Jackie told Rolling Stone that she would only allow the story to be published if she, Jackie, could control the fact-checking of her part of the story.
Jackie didn’t want Rolling Stone or anyone else to talk to her 3 friends from the night in question. Why? Because those 3 friends would have told a very different story.
“Andy” says it was oral sex.
Details at the Washington Post
12/6/2024 10:31 am
“Facts are finally coming together.”
These are claims or allegations or statements but not facts. They may be true; but they may be false; or they may be in a sort of Rashomon-like middle area.
If they can be shown to be true, then we can say they are facts.
We should realize by now that numerous statements that have been made or reportedly made about this matter have turned out to be incorrect. So, let’s use some caution.
12/6/2024 10:39 am
Steve
Why would “Andy” lie?
He is her friend. This is a really big deal and the first good piece of reporting done on this story, outside of Richard’s work.
12/6/2024 10:45 am
Aren’t there just a few small remaining problem with Jackie’s “fresh complaint” to Andy?
For example, hasn’t the fraternity already proved that there were no parties on the night in question?
Every lie starts somewhere, at some time. The “fresh complaint” is almost certainly a “fresh lie”.
Again, while the scenario of the story isn’t quite as revolting as before, it still involves a large group of fraternity brothers forcing themselves on a young woman.
Why should we believe anything coming out of the mouth of someone who is willing to tell spectacular lies?
12/6/2024 10:51 am
No source,
“‘Andy’ says it was oral sex.”
No, that is not what Andy said, as you indicate in the actual quote from the article.
Andy said that Jackie said that she was forced into non consensual oral sex with a group of men.
I am certain that your twitter feed will reflect that. The RS article aside, if what Jackie told Andy is true, we are back to square one and have a gang rape at a fraternity house somewhere. That is as disturbing as the initial RS account. So, for the sake of sexual assault victims, fraternity men who do not abuse women, and the university, please show a little restraint.
The Washington Post article reveals significant details. Jackie says she went with a date to Boar’s Head Inn before going to the fraternity party. If there was a party somewhere at a fraternity that night, Boar’s Head would be an excellent place to take a first year to impress her.
We still do not know what happened to Jackie. Whatever it was, it was traumatic enough to turn her life upside down.
There are no winners in this, if each politicized side in the debate keeps cheering for utterly unspeakable outcomes. So, if your goal is truly to promote journalistic integrity, then you will do well to get your facts straight.
12/6/2024 10:52 am
I think you are misinterpreting me. I am not implying that Jackie’s story of forced oral sex is true.
I am saying that Andy’s interview shows that Jackie told a completely different story to her friends that night, than what has been reported up until now.
That is the “fact” I was referring to.
12/6/2024 10:54 am
(I’m also anon of 10:46)
Think of the sort of character Jackie must have.
She has obviously entirely made up all kinds of damaging lies about real people, her own friends and faculty advisers, in order to keep attention on herself and develop sympathy for herself.
What kind of person would do such a thing? Does she have no conscience?
Why should anyone rush to the defense of such a person?
Isn’t by far the most likely and simplest explanation that she has been telling egregious lies from the get-go, all designed for a single purpose, to generate sympathy and attention for herself, consequences for all others be damned?
12/6/2024 10:57 am
77
Yes, of course. I get it. But the point I was making is that her credibility is now destroyed because she LIED to rolling stone and LIED to the Washington Post.
And now we have her friend ANDY, who came to her aid that night, saying that Jackie told a completely different story that night.
So, at a minimum, we now know that Jackie lied to Rolling Stone.
This is why her friends from the rape crisis groups, including Alex, have now said publicly, in the Wash Po, that they do not believe her story.
12/6/2024 11:10 am
“There are no winners in this, if each politicized side in the debate keeps cheering for utterly unspeakable outcomes. So, if your goal is truly to promote journalistic integrity, then you will do well to get your facts straight.”
And what are those facts? Are we now supposed to believe that Jackie “really’ was telling the truth because she went to her friend Andy one night and declared she had been forced into oral sex by a group of fraternity brothers? And we are supposed to believe this despite the fact that she is not only a demonstrated liar on all manner of facts, but also a liar willing to throw the very people who supported her under the bus with her lies if those lies bring further sympathy and attention to her?
And consider the original story she told Andy that night. Can’t she identify a single person by name who was actually involved in that supposed gang sexual assault? Why couldn’t she offer up at least one such name to RS and WaPo when asked — a name that might actually hold up to scrutiny? Who was the supposed date she had at Boar’s Inn?
12/6/2024 12:08 pm
Source,
Thank you. I thought you would get it.
Yes, I agree. For now, we know for certain (if Andy is telling the truth) that what Jackie told RS is not what she told her friends immediately after the alleged incident.
The rest is still conjecture, at this point.
Something is not right about this. It does not add up. Why would Jackie deliberately ruin her life by making false allegations of gang rape? That does not mean, of course, that a sexual assault actually occurred.
To the issue of how a traumatized victim relays information and remembers the event that traumatized him or her, the youtube video of Dr. David Lisak, entitled “Neurobiology of Trauma” is worth watching. (It is 34 minutes long) Lisak talks about how information is processed when a person is traumatized and says, in essence, (I am paraphrasing for the sake of brevity) that the way in which assault victims are interrogated can actually make it appear as if they are lying, because we question them in an attempt to get at the facts in a logical, analytical, linear way and the victim does not process information that way, but in fragmented bits of sensory memory. In other words, we, the non victim, may ask, “where were you?” ; “what street?”, etc, and the victim may answer, “I don’t know. There was a large pine tree in the front yard. ” I am not saying this applies to Jackie. She may be completely fabricating this. But if she is not, then we have done a disservice to her.
Observer
On Boar’s Head. I would like to know if Jackie actually went on a date there, too. It is knowable, so maybe an investigative reporter will research it.
12/6/2024 3:09 pm
The big Washington Post story by T. Rees Shapiro has-dismayingly-many problems of its own, including instances of journalistic carelessness and the promotion of questionable claims through anonymous sources.
To wit:
Alex Pinkleton, a close friend of Jackie’s who survived a rape and an attempted rape during her first two years on campus, said in an interview…
- Is it an established fact that Pinkleton was raped and attempted raped? Why is the Washington Post reporting it as such? I would bet this should read, “Pinkleton claims/says.”
- Did these alleged incidents occur on campus? The Washington Post should clarify.
- When did the media start using the phrasing “survive” sexual assault? Is that the appropriate word to use?
- Suggested phrasing: “Pinkleton says she was victim of sexual assaults”
The Post interviewed Jackie several times during the past week and has worked to corroborate her version of events…
What is Jackie’s “version of events”? Is it the story that appeared in Rolling Stone? Is it a version she is now telling? The Washington Post doesn’t say.
Jackie recounted an attack very similar to the one she presented in the magazine: She had gone on a date with a member of the house, went to a party there and ended up in a room where she was brutally attacked — seven men raping her in succession, with two others watching.
Vaginal rape? Oral? The Washington Post doesn’t say.
Rolling Stone ran a lengthy article about what it characterized as a culture of sex assault at the flagship state university, using Jackie’s story to illustrate how brazen such attacks can be and how indifferent the university is to them.
Shouldn’t this instead be written: using Jackie’s story to illustrate how brazen such alleged attacks can be and how allegedly indifferent the university is to them?
Jackie’s story empowered many women to speak publicly about attacks on them, but it also immediately raised questions about the decisions Jackie made that evening — not going to a hospital or reporting the alleged crime to police or the school
Here’s how this should have been written:
“Jackie’s story empowered many women to speak publicly about alleged attacks on them, but it also immediately raised questions about the decisions Jackie allegedly made that evening — not going to a hospital or reporting the alleged crime to police or the school”
Although Jackie shared elements of her story at a Take Back the Night event at the university
What elements of which of the stories? The Washington Post doesn’t specify.
A student identified as “Andy” in the Rolling Stone article said in an interview with The Post Friday night that Jackie did call him and two other friends for help a few weeks into the fall semester in 2012.
- Is Andy his real name? Why hasn’t the Washington Post given his full name? The newspaper doesn’t tell us.
- “A few weeks into the fall semester.” Actual dates have become very important to this story. What night did this occur? The Washington Post doesn’t tell us.
He said Jackie said that “something bad happened” and that he ran to meet her on campus, about a mile from the school’s fraternities.
He “ran” (as in jogged) a mile to meet her? Why a mile off campus? Is there any first year student housing a mile off campus?
“Andy” said Jackie said she had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to perform oral sex on a group of men
How is one forced to perform oral sex on a group? Force must be difficult to impossible, so some kind of threats should be assumed to be necessary. What happened here? Was a gun put to her head? Did Shapiro ask “Andy”?
She, instead, wanted to return to her dorm, and he and the friends spent the night with her to comfort her at her request.
Were they up all night? Did they sleep on the floor? Was there a roommate there?
Renda said she was raped her freshman year after attending a fraternity party.
Is the Post implicating the fraternity here? Did they alleged rape occur in the fraternity house?
Renda said Thursday that Jackie initially told her she was attacked by five students at Phi Kappa Psi.
What does the Post/Renda mean here by t “attacked”?
Renda said Thursday that Jackie initially told her she was attacked by five students at Phi Kappa Psi. Renda said she learned months later that Jackie had changed the number of attackers from five to seven.
Isn’t the number now at 9, per the Rolling Stone story? The Post should note that here.
Jackie’s former roommate, Rachel Soltis, said she noticed emotional and physical changes to her friend during the fall semester of 2012, when they shared a suite.
Was Soltis in the suite the night Jackie came home with Andy and the rest of her friends and they all spent that night together?
The Post asked Jackie numerous times to reveal the full name of the two attackers she said she recognized. She declined, saying she didn’t want the perpetrator “to come back in my life.”
How would revealing the names bring the alleged men back into her life?
Jackie said the Rolling Stone account of her attack was truthful, but she also acknowledged that some details in the article might not be accurate.
Which details? Did the Post even ask her?