She’s Re-Reporting The Story?
Posted on December 15th, 2014 in Uncategorized | 66 Comments »
Kathryn Hendley, Alex Stock and Ryan Duffin—the three friends of Jackie’s who Sabrina Rubin Erdely falsely claimed discouraged from her calling the authorities—now tell the AP that they have all been contacted by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, who is “re-reporting” her original story.
All three say Erdely has since reached out to them, and that she has told them she is re-reporting the story. Hendley told the AP Erdely apologized to her for portraying her the way she did.
This is a bizarre idea for a number of reasons.
First, Rubin Erdely herself continues to refuse to talk to the press—or, as she said of the UVa administration, she is “stonewalling.” So she is a hypocrite.
And second—why on earth would anyone talk to her? (The AP story does not disclose whether the three friends agreed to be re-interviewed interviewed.) She revealed her profound political bias in her first article, as well as a fatal lack of professionalism. She might improve on the second part, but she’s unlikely to change the first. In fact, she might be even more invested in proving the point that, whatever happened to Jackie, there is a larger “rape culture” at the University of Virginia.
But most important, Rubin Erdely is deeply compromised by her original shoddy reporting, and she is now part of this story; it makes no sense for her to be a part of “re-reporting” it. What if she subsequently writes that Jackie made the whole thing up? That would obviously be to her benefit—and we couldn’t possibly believe it. Apologizing to Kathryn Hendley is a decent thing to do, but at this point, it’s also a way to fend off a lawsuit. Remember, Rubin Erdely called Hendley a “self-declared hookup slut queen” who told Jackie not to go to the authorities lest she (Hendley) never get invited to a fraternity party again.
However, Hendley told the AP that not only did she not say any of that, she had arrived with Stock to the picnic table only to have Jackie say she didn’t want her to be part of the conversation. She said she watched from afar while Stock and Duffin talked with Jackie.
Anything and everything that Sabrina Rubin Erdely reports on at UVa would now directly affect her; anything she might produce under such circumstances shouldn’t be trusted any more than her original article.
I suspect that Rubin Erdely is doing this on her own; if you’re Rolling Stone, there’s no way you want her making telephone calls and representing your magazine now. But then, Rolling Stone too says it is “re-reporting” the story. And Rolling Stone has done a lot of stupid things over the past few months.
By the way, “re-reporting” is not a common or even known term in journalism, and here’s why: You can’t “re-report” a thing, because as soon as you write about it the first time, you change it; the word suggests that a situation is static, but it is the opposite.
There’s at least one reporter—the Washington Post’s T. Rees Shapiro—down in Charlottesville trying to find out what really happened. Judging from what he’s printed, and from what I’ve seen of him on television, he seems like a serious guy; the TV interviewers keep trying to get him to speak beyond the scope of his reporting, and he keeps limiting his answers only to what he knows for sure. That’s smart—and responsible.
Rubin Erdely should let other reporters do the job at which she failed. Instead, she should be busy writing an apology—and, in my opinion, a resume.
66 Responses
12/15/2014 6:39 am
Remember: She not only called Cindy a “self-declared hookup queen”.
She called her a self-declared hookup queen who thought it could be quite fun being gang-raped by 7 hot phi-psi guys and couldn’t care less about her beaten, crying, bleeding friend. And someone who thought taking her to the hospital could ruin her chances of going to awesome parties in the future.
That’s harsh. And when Erdely says “self-declared” you expect that she heard that from Cindy herself. Now that we know Cindy never talked to Erdely, how could Sabrina have written SELF-declared?
To whom did Cindy declared that?
She should have written “Cindy, who is a hookup queen according to Jackie”
12/15/2014 6:56 am
RB,
I agree with what you have said here. There is nothing to be gained by Rolling Stone “re-reporting” this story. The Washington Post is doing a fine job, and will continue to do so. The Post wrote an editorial on Dec. 11 titled “After the Rolling Stone story, what’s next for UVa ?” It is quite insightful and interjects a voice of reason into a debate that is quickly spiraling down into a form of hate politics for some. Whether or not Erdely is Jewish has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever, as I think most people would agree. Yet this question has entered the conversation more than once, so the far left and the far right are at their predictable posts. (I am referring to the comments of a commenter in a previous post) Shapiro is a fine reporter. Let’s see what he finds out.
UVa. 1977
12/15/2014 6:59 am
Erdely is trying to fish information for her side of lawsuits that are coming at her. Her husband is an attorney (prior assistant DA in Philadelphia) and it may be as simple as trying to cut down on her future legal bills which will be ruinous. She has defamed everyone in the “story” and no one should speak to her or Rolling Stone. The three friends, to me at least, appear to be dribbling out information under the supervision of an attorney and have to stay on the good side of UVa where they are still students. It is an astounding legal mess.
12/15/2014 7:13 am
No, it’s all good — in the updated version of the RS story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely will do her best James Jesus Angleton imitation and go on a extensive mole hunt and eventually expose the Rape Gestapo’s super secret deep penetration agent: Jackie Harvey Oswald (J-HO). It will turn out that the brave girls of the Rape Resistance at U-Va were infiltrated by J-HO whose father allegedly works for Army Intelligence, just like Jim Morrison, the famous rock star mole created by the CIA, whose father was a Naval Admiral.
But J-HO is no lone nut — SRE will discover a web of Rape Gestapo collaborators and label them the U-Va Five. These collaborators will have not only invented their own faux-rape stories, but they were also trained at Area 57 in the newest and most high-tech catfishing methods in order to confuse and defeat the brave Rape Resistance matriots. In a thrilling end, SRE will break into the Phi Psi house and dramatically lift up the floor boards and discover a Hogan’s Heroes-style basement operation where in fact overwhelmingly blond frat boys, decked out in anti-shard Kevlar body suits, are indeed raping trembling Freshman girls on beds of broken glass, coached on by the evil U-Va Five, who are then unmasked and exposed as undercover clones of New Republic owner Chris Hughes posing as agent-provocateur rape survivors.
Or something like that…
12/15/2014 7:14 am
the story that keeps on giving.
keep up the great work, richard.
12/15/2014 7:37 am
I wonder why no one has followed up on the part of the story where Jackie is in Dean Eramo’s office sporting a black eye, fresh from her rapist throwing a bottle at her and calling her a “feminazi cunt”?
Very convenient that the “rapist” used a term coined by arch-villain of liberalism, Rush Limbaugh and all around poster boy for white-male patriarchal values.
Did she go to the police for an assault that could have killed her? Throwing a bottle at someone is no minor assault. It’s very convenient that bottles were used for both the rape and the physical assault.
12/15/2014 7:43 am
Richard,
I think it’s strange that you assume the “underlying” political agenda has survived this well-deserved professional hell Erdely has been going through. For most self-promoting journalists (Glass), political ideology is a tool, not an end in itself. I think that rather than doubling down on the horrible underreported problem of campuses failing to respond to sexual assault, it is more likely that Erdely is crafting a story about the horrible underreported problem of lives being ruined by invented and completely false accusations of rape. She can talk to clinical experts on pathological lying by narcissists like Jackie. And her own story — a professional life thrown into ruins by a crazy catfishing rape fabulist — will be exhibit number one.
I could be wrong, but I think my guess at the story she has in mind is more likely than yours. She can use Yoffe’s (good) reporting to get started on the false idea that fake rape accusations are an epidemic, and present herself as just one victim among thousands of unstable narcissists like Jackie.
For self-promoters, politics is a means, not an end, and switching sides makes them feel virtuous. I think Erdely is going after Jackie “and her ilk,” and she will find examples enough to paint the picture that there are thousands of them out there, and all men should be afraid. (This is no more true than massive bureaucratic indifference to students being raped, but that won’t stop her.)
You watch.
12/15/2014 7:46 am
VB’s prediction is very well done as well!
12/15/2014 8:16 am
Standing Eagle:
I don’t think Erdely has that much room for maneuver. Any reasonable, rational, non radical person has abandoned the Erdely Ship… and no re-report will bring this people back…
But she knows that there are people still willing to stand by her: the radical feminists. Those girls who can’t accept that SOMETHING didn’t happen to Jackie and that crazy people can lie about everything sometimes.. including RAPE.. those girls who claim, without shame, that 1 in 4 girls are raped during college.
Erdely will try to survive based on the support of this group. The only group she still can get any kind of support.
So she is definitely NOT writing anything that goes against hardcore feminism, the rape culture on campus and other stuff because that would alienate the last group of people left still willing to be on her side and she would be all alone.
She will be writing some random BS in the mold of Anna Merlan and other dumb women.. like if the University had done a better job at handling rape, they would have discovered what happened to Jackie that night.. but since they were negligent and indifferent, they allowed 2 bad things to keep going: real raped girls to be ignored.. and false rape claims to persist.
And then she will finish with something like that: the focus was always at HOW UVa and others handle rape allegations and never on a single particular story. And that even fake rapes should be well investigated by University… And there is a reason thart UVa is being investigated by the Federal Government.. it is because they have been failing on that.
BOOK IT!
12/15/2014 8:25 am
Richard-
I agree T Rees Shapiro has done a very good job reporting the facts and letting the facts speak for themselves. I was disappointed in the story picked up by AP. It has been “updated” or corrected several times. For a piece addressing the key points Rolling Stone got wrong, it failed to mention:
- that Jackie was not bloody or obviously injured
- that Jackie said she was going on a date with someone from her chemistry class, not a lifeguard she met working at the pool
- that Jackie never mentioned the name of the fraternity
These friends provided interesting insight on these issues in the piece by T Rees Shapiro.
12/15/2014 8:28 am
As I understood, the police are now actively involved, trying to clarify what did or did not happen (can anyone confirm that?). SRE ought to just wait until they are finished and go public with their findings, then write something appropriate. At this point, I’m not so sure anyone really wants to listen to anything additional she may have or want to say about this.
12/15/2014 8:40 am
“Re-reporting” - nice one! “I call do-overs!”
It’s like my students who, busted for plagiarism, insist on getting another chance to get it right.
Play till you win!
12/15/2014 9:10 am
Erdely will simply talk to Jackie’s current “friends”, all alleged rape victims themselves. The re-reported story will just be “see, there REALLY IS a Rape Culture at UVa! Jackie lied but never mind her, there are many other TRUE victims!”
Remember, Erdely initially defended her story by saying people were missing the point, it wasn’t about Jackie but about the entrenched UVa Rape Culture.
I don’t see why anyone should trust anything she “reports” on ever again, but that’s my bet as to what the re-reported “story” will be.
The Narrative Must Be Preserved.
12/15/2014 9:13 am
FYI
Other items of difference between RS and 3 friends:
- 3am versus 1am
- in front the dorms vs. fraternity house (1 mile away)
I still have not heard any reporter ask the 3 friends how Jackie said she got from the alleged date to the dorms.
Also, Ryan (the love interest who previously rebuffed her) was the one called and the one asked to spend the night to comfort her. How smart was Ryan to call Alex and to insist that Alex spend the night with him?
Another question for reporters: When did the 3 realize that Jackie’s date was fake? At the time or just now?
12/15/2014 9:15 am
If I were Kathryn Hendley, it take about 2 seconds before I told Erdely to go to hell. She got painted as some kind of uncaring monster, who discouraged a rape victim from going to the cops because she wanted to go to parties. Sorry doesn’t cut it.
12/15/2014 9:27 am
“How smart was Ryan to call Alex and to insist that Alex spend the night with him?”
I encourage all who are not familiar with the “hot-crazy matrix” to google it.
Ryan’s innate sense of self-preservation appears to have performed a similar analysis of Jackie, thus saving him untold drama (and a possible “rape” accusation).
12/15/2014 9:38 am
Jackie’s friend who also was hit by a beer bottle, allegedly, also wrote in the Virginia college paper that she was assaulted by three men late after a basketball game, who used similar language. In spite of being assaulted and then writing about it in the paper and working for one of the organizations in the story, this woman did not report the late night assault by 3 men.
I have also found similar incidents described in a couple of other Rubin stories, none of which ring very true. Random people seem to always approach her protagonists and attack them without provocation in incidents that range from assault to serious battery but no one ever files charges or seems to go to the hospital. Her articles are chock-full of unverifiable facts and things that are almost certainly made up. She seems to have no conception, at all, of how southern fraternities operate. They are deep, dark mysterious castles full of rich boys with influential parents and guarded by Cookie and Biker.
And speaking of investigations, how is the investigation coming with respect to the serious and dangerous vandalism of the fraternity house? Any leads on that? That is the serious crime here. And also, we should thank Rubin for helping the true statistics on rape come out. 1 in 5 my ass.
12/15/2014 10:20 am
“Whether or not Erdely is Jewish has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever, as I think most people would agree.”
That’s a frankly preposterous thing to write. Her Jewishness drives her politics, which drives her political- advocacy-masquerading-as-reporting.
12/15/2014 10:27 am
This is like TNR letting Stephen Glass “re-report” his fake CPAC hit piece, or the NYT letting Jayson Blair “re-report” his fake Washington Sniper coverage.
No, no, no. What we /need/ is to hear from a Responsible Adult, if there is one on the RS staff to be had, explaining how this happened and letting us know what steps are being taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Paging RS: is there a Responsible Adult to be found in your midst? ANYWHERE?
12/15/2014 10:39 am
This is interesting, although I don’t know what, exactly, it indicates.
Before the RS story broke — but after Erdely had done her reporting — there was a CBS story on college rape.
It quotes Alex Pinkleton, who was also a source in the RS story. She is a rape victim, i.e., she got really drunk and woke up with a naked man on top of her. He was referred to UVA authorities for counseling.
There are two approving comments on the story from — you guessed it — “Jackie”.
It’s all so weird.
12/15/2014 10:39 am
forgot to post the link
http://wtvr.com/2014/11/06/college-sex-assault-investigation/
12/15/2014 10:40 am
forgot to post link
http://wtvr.com/2014/11/06/college-sex-assault-investigation/
12/15/2014 10:42 am
SE, that’s a kind of intriguing idea. You might be right. But that would be such a complete rejection of what she did before, it would surely be greeted with a ton of skepticism–and then SRE would lose the one group of supporters she currently as, advocates for victims of sexual assault.
Sebastian, that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Worse than ridiculous. Let’s try to have this discussion without rolling into the gutter, please.
12/15/2014 10:46 am
forgot to mention it was a local story and forgot to include the link
http://wtvr.com/2014/11/06/college-sex-assault-investigation/
12/15/2014 11:22 am
After the egregious libel of those 3 student, for her to contact them now sounds like a case of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her lawyer isn’t doing a good job.
12/15/2014 11:24 am
For anyone who has read 20th century European history, these references to “the Tribe” and some kind of malevolent conspiracy to bring down Western civilization, are spine-chilling.
I did go to Steve Sailer’s blog, because of all the hype his acolytes were giving it here, but tuned out immediately upon reading some of the unapologetically anti-Semitic comments there.
Both the far-right and the far-left are unhinged when it comes to the subject of Judaism.
12/15/2014 11:39 am
SE —
You are right. Erdely is a narcissistic self-promoter. So predicting her next move is as simple as asking, what would a narcissistic self-promoter do right now?
Look for a subjective first person retrospective on the work, seasoned lightly with mea culpas, and heavy on the “I been catfished!” Unconvincing apology to the victims of the piece (Phi Psi house, Eramo, “Randall”, etc.). Conclude with some obvious “rape really does exist” rehash to satisfy the feminist true believers.
Conspicuously absent from the piece will be any explanation why she flat-out lied in the post-publication interviews or in the piece itself.
The story will do nothing to restore her cred, but will generate lots of page views for whatever rag publishes it.
12/15/2014 11:59 am
@Austin
Spot on! Sabrina probably has a Lance Armstrong type of personality. So you will get that same silly stuff that he gave on Oprah when he finally admitted he cheated
12/15/2014 12:33 pm
Not interested in a thing this person has to say, whenever she gets around to climbing out of the slime pit she created for herself.
12/15/2014 12:38 pm
I hope these kids have counsel, and their counsel is advising them to say nothing to either Erdley or RS.
It seems clear Erdley doesn’t have counsel, and her stupidity continues unabated.
12/15/2014 1:35 pm
“SRE would lose the one group of supporters she currently has, advocates for victims of sexual assault.”
I don’t think their support is useful to her. She wants to advance professionally, in journalism. She needs to write something compelling that sophisticated editors find interesting to read. “How Jackie Fooled a Sophisticated Reporter Using the Societal Power of Rape Accusations” is the only thing that fits the bill.
Of course, Fabricio could be right — SRE could double down to keep her “constituency.” But she’s not a politician, she’s a journalist. Her constituency is editors. And Fabricio’s premise is that SRE must acknowledge that no rational, reasonable person could possibly be interested in what she has to say. I don’t think SRE is likely to assume that.
More likely she will cast herself as the victim of a fiendishly ingenous and highly credible liar — Jackie herself — and take it on herself to warn the nation of how credible certain unstable people can be when they invent rape stories.
Needless to say, this warning will harm society far, far more than it helps it. But these are not the things journalists focus on.
12/15/2014 1:40 pm
Thank you, Richard, for finally calling out the nuttiest of your recent commenters (the anti-Semitism baiters). Real crackpots should not just be setting up shop here if you can help it.
I think those who think that Erdely’s main malfunction is that she is a radical feminist are also, to some extent, off base. They’re not quite crackpots in every case, but off base.
The main driver of this fiasco is that Erdely believed the story she had in mind would sell. The fact that it resonated with a campus women’s issue was only part of the reason for that. She sought out the most salesworthy example — the most extreme one — and aimed to go viral.
SRE became a willing dupe as a result (Jackie’s, not “the feminists’ ” — and/but of course there will be now those who claim Jackie actually represents all campus rape-survivor advocates), and then tried to cover up the shoddiness of her fact reporting.
Disgraceful, but not metonymic for any political group or agenda. Just the drive for money and prestige.
12/15/2014 1:56 pm
“Sebastian, that’s a ridiculous thing to say.”
It’s what Jewish journalists themselves say about themselves! Apparently it’s perfectly fine if they say it about themselves, and “ridiculous” if anyone else repeats.it.
12/15/2014 1:59 pm
“I think those who think that Erdely’s main malfunction is that she is a radical feminist are also, to some extent, off base.”
I think it’s quite self-evident that you’re intent on damage limitation here and confining the fall-out from this story to as few people as possible and protecting the “radical feminist”s from the scrutiny they deserve.
12/15/2014 2:10 pm
Anon, if it turns out that SRE was actually motivated by a political agenda then I’ll allow that she reflects badly on that agenda, and has harmed that cause. I think her actions are perfectly well explained by the belief that a story like Jackie’s would sell magazines.
Notably, everyone has stopped arguing that Jackie is motivated by a “radical feminist” agenda. It turns out that she was motivated by a desire to be Ryan’s girlfriend and then to give an explanation for her depression and bad grades; then apparently she rode the wave of attention that brought her. This was not a sane thing to do, so everyone has stopped arguing that she is a cold calculating radical feminist pushing an agenda, and shifted their attention to SRE as the Leftist villain.
12/15/2014 2:18 pm
Well, my thoughts:
(1) SRE has got to “de-Jackie” the narrative. While a gripping story which drew the reader in, Jackie’s troubles were never central to the main thesis - supposed administrative apathy toward rape. But, damn, did the main thesis suffer when Jaclie’s story got questioned.
(2) SRE needs to develop the interplay between Title IX, the development of university level administrative bodies to sanction sexual assault, the role of local prosecutors - especially in off campus sexual rapes, a university’s duty to accord due process to the accused, and what does or does not trigger a mandatory report. Emily Renda prepared a good discussion which is worth reading: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/10/renda-sexual-violence-and-the-law-what-you-need-to-know.
(3) SRE should review how other universities deal with the same Title IX responsibilities and whether different procedures may be better or worse.
(4) SRE should go to a UVa student cafeteria and speak with “ordinary” students about UVa - not just those in the sexual assault support/advocacy community who are invested in the subject.
(5) SRE should deal only with current data. No more references to 30 year old rapes, 20 year old decisions not to improve lighting, no more reliance upon former deans who left 10 years ago for commentary about the university culture. And it has to be “data”. No more “wealthy is the norm” and other weasel words - instead, available empirical data on percentages of students receiving financial aid, data about aid packages, etc. (while I view UVa as being solidly upper middle class, I would dispute claims that it is generally a rich kids school.
(6) SRE has got to get the chip off her shoulder. Just stop the seething barely under the skin disgust at the thought of a university where students are not necessarily conservative, but likely more conformist than their peers. If she really wants a story, that conformity might be where it is.
(7) I hope UVa will let the sunshine in. While SRE’s insinuation that the lateness of an interview with the president was evidence of stonewalling constituted DYKWIA conceit of the first order, I just do not know that the truth is worse than the inferences which might be had by lawyering up in the face of a federal investigation.
12/15/2014 3:21 pm
All this talk of who is the “real villain” (Jackie, SRE, or a sinister coterie of rape activists) is missing the elephant in the room. Who published this fraud? Who gave credibility to what would otherwise have been ignored as an over-the-top fantasy from a bad Lifetime movie? Rolling Stone Magazine, that’s who.
None of what Matt Taibbi described about RS’s exacting factual review occurred here. This means that RS editors were more than merely slipshod. They went out of their way to let this story go to press without confirming the most basic facts (such as: does Drew exist?). They lied to the media about what little fact-checking they in fact had done.
Mentally troubled liars like Jackie will always exist. As recent experience shows, deceitful and incompetent journalists like Rubin Erdely will too. Respectable publications like RS employ full-time fact-checkers as a last line of defense. This allows the public to rely on the information in those publications as truthful (if not unbiased). As a society, we can’t debate the big issues of the day if we can’t even agree on the facts.
For that reason, I would put at least 50% of the responsibility for this travesty on Rolling Stone, probably more.
12/15/2014 7:58 pm
My guess is that Sabrina Rubin Erdely is going to write an “I was had” piece about how Jackie fooled her into thinking she was talking to her friends while she wasn’t to thrown Jackie under the bus to try to save her own career. I don’t know how she could possibly think there is any path out of this that doesn’t make her look bad, since this all starts with her lurid story shopping with an agenda. But I’m guessing she’s going to try to throw Jackie under the bus, though doing that without looking cruel or appearing to undermine the very cause she was trying to help is going to be quite a trick to pull off.
12/15/2014 9:25 pm
Memo To Sabrina:
“If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” ~ Will Rogers
12/15/2014 10:20 pm
anonnj
I think that is a real possibility. And if so, SRE is uglier than previously reported.
A mea culpa will ring truer than a claim that, after searching for the right victim, she took it hook line and sinker.
If SRE wants to be taken seriously, she has to take her lumps and eat some humble pie. No serious person is going to cut her slack for being supposedly duped by a 20 year old whose veracity SRE presumed without sufficient vetting.
12/15/2014 11:17 pm
“everyone has stopped arguing that Jackie is motivated by a “radical feminist” agenda. ”
I didn’t see that get much play, for obvious reasons. Anyone who understood instantly that Jackie was lying would have pegged her for a narcissistic pity junkie and a drama queen. Radical feminists are nuts, of course, but in an entirely different direction.
“If SRE wants to be taken seriously, she has to take her lumps and eat some humble pie.”
Ah, one of those sadly deluded people who think rape is the overriding issue here, somehow to be rescued. Trying to be all grownup about it.
Every.single.female journalist who has been caught cooking a story has never, ever been heard from again. If she beats the odds, it’s because she knows where some editor has a body is buried.
12/16/2014 1:35 am
I guess Erdley figured she could turn down Jackie’s request to back out of the story, because she thought Jackie would have to recant her rape story once her RS piece came out, and that wasn’t going to happen.
Now we have every key person who was involved in this story saying they had a problem with Erdley.
1) The referral
2) The friends
3) Jackie
!!!?
What’s the best next move for SRE? Rehash or rehab?
12/16/2014 1:40 am
No, the really big story is why the whole media except Richard Bradley either acquiesced in or promoted this self-evidently absurd agitprop hate porn from November 19th until I finally got up the courage to link to Bradley’s November 24th post on November 29th?
Why are we so conditioned to believe ridiculous libels about conservative white southerners?
12/16/2014 1:42 am
Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s work is infused with a prejudiced that is both common among media people and so powerful that we don’t even have a word for it.
12/16/2014 2:08 am
You probably shouldn’t put quotes around “self-declared hookup slut” because in the article it was “self-declared hookup queen”, just for what its worth
12/16/2014 5:17 am
It is unfortunate that Richard Bradley’s excellent dissection of the unbelievable claims in the Rolling Stone story got so little notice initially. More unfortunate, that when comments finally came, the first five came from Steve Sailer.
Mr. Sailer is an acolyte of Kevin B. MacDonald, a psychology professor at California State University who has been pushing a theory, beloved of antisemites, that Jews pursue a “group evolutionary strategy” to demoralize, undermine and depress non-Jews so as to get a leg up on them. This is the constant refrain on Sailer’s blog, day-in and day-out. Sailer himself does not repeat the meme constantly, but often enough to reassure his followers that he is still “in the fold”.
Now Sailer fancies himself the man who blew the likely hoax wide open by giving RB publicity. (I found RB’s first piece not via Sailer but via a link from Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds.) Sailer’s followers on his blog have been shouting his praises for his “scoop”, as if he were actually equally important to the public unraveling of the hoax as Bradley.
The glaring holes and contradictions in Erdely’s story would have come to be widely known eventually in any case. Apparently one or two obscure (and I mean truly obscure!) bloggers preceded Bradley by a day or two in calling B.S. on the RS story. But unlike Bradley, they had little to offer in the way of detailed, point-by-point criticism. Nor did they posses any of Bradley’s intrinsic credibility as a seasoned professional journalist, and one who is painfully familiar with journalists twisting (and even inventing) facts.
He still took a risk by venturing his critique and for that he deserves respect. Race-obsessed, antisemitic blowhards trying to muscle in on his turfs do not.
12/16/2014 6:18 am
@ Anonymous 12/15/2014 11:24 am
“some of the unapologetically anti-Semitic comments there”
Could you please copy/paste one — just one will do — of the “unapologetically anti-Semitic comments” you saw there?
TIA
12/16/2014 6:28 am
@ I-Roller 12/16/2014 5:17 am
First, what qualifies one person as an “acolyte” of another? — ie, how does one see or determine that person A is an “acolyte” of person B? Next, why *exactly* do you believe that Mr Sailer is “an acolyte of Kevin B. MacDonald”? I just searched Mr Sailer’s archive at unz.com for “MacDonald”, and did not find all that many references to Kevin MacDonald; there are a few, which I perused, but I certainly did not see anything that would lead me to think Mr Sailer is “an acolyte of Kevin B. MacDonald” — therefore the previous questions.
“Race-obsessed, antisemitic blowhards trying to muscle in on his turfs do not.”
Lastly, this appears to be just ad hominem, and no one should pay too much attention to it.
12/16/2014 7:46 am
@eah: You must be a brand new Steve Sailer reader, else you would not ask questions that a bit of familiarity would have made unneeded.
Take, for example, a Sailer column from earlier this year, titled “Here’s the gist of Amy Chua’s new book” (paste this into your favorite search engine to browse there).
“[T]he chip on the shoulder, by generating animus, is useful in pushing down competing groups …”
That’s MacDonald in a nutshell. Sailer amplifies:
“Or in the case of the wealthiest, most powerful group [no prizes for guessing who Sailer is referring to], they use their influence over the media to instill it in their children and to depress, demoralize, and divide other groups’ children.”
(“influence over the media” hotlinks to a NYT story on one enterprising oddball’s failing scheme to put a book containing nothing but the word “Jew” printed six million times “in every church and synagogue, school and library”.)
Using “race-obsessed” to describe Sailer is not “ad hominem”, it is accurate. His columns at unz.com appear under the heading of “Human Biodiversity”, though Sailer lacks any qualifications in natural science.
He’s a White Nationalist. Not the goosestepping, swastika-wearing, shaven-headed kind. But he and his readers are forever obsessing about how whites are put upon by Hymie, Taniqua, Ravi, and Xiang.
Here’s an example of him employing the “dog-whistle”, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, variety of “deniable” racism:
“But chimps live almost as long as humans, and need almost as much space to be happy. Yet, the adult males are so violent they need to be locked up away from people. The only institutions that can afford to meet these competing needs are rich zoos and some of the better-supported shelters far out in the countryside.
“Thus, we American humans should act like responsible adult human beings and reduce the number of these subhuman dependents of ours who are in America to levels that we can afford to properly care for.”
It’s obvious in context what group of Americans he is referring to. His snickering readers understood him just fine. (Title of that column is “World War C”.)
An unsavory character, who nonetheless craves validation by the establishment he so despises. A pathetic figure, really.
12/16/2014 9:16 am
@ I-Roller 12/16/2014 7:46 am
You ignored my request for a definition of “acolyte”.
And I searched the Sailer post you mention, and I do not find either “Kevin” or “MacDonald” - what’s up with that?
So according to you, if Sailer says something that, again according to you, is vaguely reminiscent of something MacDonald may have possibly said, or perhaps would say, that makes him an “acolyte” of MacDonald. Got it.
“A pathetic figure, really.” Well said.
Go away, you ridiculous buffoon.
12/16/2014 9:41 am
@eah If you don’t know the meaning of a word, dictionary dot com is your friend. Don’t ask others for what you could do yourself. Unless your request was not sincere, which I suspect is the case.
12/16/2014 10:31 am
[…] Glenn Reynolds demolished the phony “college rape epidemic” meme in his USA Today column Monday, and little remains but dimly glowing cinders of smoldering lies amid the cold ashes of Rolling Stone‘s incinerated fraternity gang-rape tale. […]
12/16/2014 10:42 am
Anyone notice that Ryan said that Erdely has asked them to keep the contents of their discussion off the record? Considering how boastful she was about her story and how she demonized the fraternity with no basis in fact, I would say that her request for confidentiality with Ryan is exceedingly cowardly.
12/16/2014 11:48 am
If you think Erdely is going to write some sort of “I was fooled” or retraction story, you need to think about what ideologues such as her do when cornered.
It isn’t ball up and apologize, it is, double down.
Remember what President Clinton did when caught in his lies about Monica?
See how President Obama is handling the recent repudiation of his policies in the most recent election?
If you think she is going to be honest and forthright, you’re nuts.
12/16/2014 10:44 pm
I love it, everyone thought Rich Bradley was a prick for even questioning this faux rape and look at them now..
GOOD JOB RICHARD!
12/17/2014 8:58 am
[…] journalists, with Richard Bradley being one of the first, have understandably unleashed a fury on Rolling Stone‘s Sabrina […]
12/18/2014 12:07 am
[…] if the story turns out not to be true, no big deal. I’ll just re-report […]
12/18/2014 5:56 am
[…] if a story turns out not to be true, no large deal. I’ll usually re-report […]
12/18/2014 7:01 pm
[…] if a story turns out not to be true, no large deal. I’ll usually re-report […]
12/19/2014 5:07 am
@I-Roller
Sailer is definitely a racist and anti-semite of the vilest kind. His every waking moment is filled with a craving to stir up hatred of his designated racial enemies. Just look at the racial animus oozing out of this:
Wow. Feel the hate-hate-hate. Even the architecture surrounding these “preppy” “blond” “throngs” inspires Sailer with loathing and disgust. How can anyone be dumb enough not to see this repulsive hate-monger and his acolytes for what they are? Far too easily, it seems. It’s a blessing indeed that you’re deploying your razor-sharp intellect and independence of mind on the side of Truth and Justice in this sorry saga. Down with Sailer!
12/19/2014 7:08 am
[…] if a story turns out not to be true, no large deal. I’ll usually re-report […]
12/19/2014 7:11 am
@eah a.k.a. Tinki Tonka:
Still playing dumb, eh? Rubin Erdely’s piece was journalistic malpractice and even included some form of racial stereotyping, as seen in the passage you quote. That’s just what Sailer does on his blog, too.
The difference is this: no one is accusing “whites” / gentiles / non-Jews of a “group evolutionary strategy” of trying to keep the Jews down by citing Sailer’s hate-mongering as evidence. That’s because in reality, the vast majority of Americans have no problems with Jews but instead embrace them wholeheartedly.
In contrast, antisemites seek out examples of Jews behaving poorly and then claim this is evidence of a Jewish “group evolutionary strategy” to keep the goyim down. In reality, the vast majority of Jews are good neighbors and Americans and most everyone knows this.
Only a small minority of bitter losers have organized their worldview around how their misery is the fault of Jewish scheming.
12/20/2014 4:42 am
@I-roller
@eah a.k.a. Tinki Tonka:
Still playing dumb, eh?
I’m not eah. I am dumb, tho’.
Rubin Erdely’s piece was journalistic malpractice and even included some form of racial stereotyping, as seen in the passage you quote.
Right, you admit that Rubin Erdely “even included some form of racial stereotyping”. What kind? And why was she not denounced for it and driven out of the media? Because the “racial stereotyping” she employed is utterly standard anti-white-European-male hate-mongering. And when you look at who dominates the MSM media, it’s easy to see whose ethnic agenda is at work.
That’s just what Sailer does on his blog, too.
A little challenge for you that I’m sure you will not meet: Produce an example of Sailer doing the same as Rubin Erdley did: inciting racial hatred by falsification and inversion of reality.
In contrast, antisemites seek out examples of Jews behaving poorly
Karl Marx, for example. Sigmund Freud. Stephen Jay Gould. Bernie Madoff. Minor figures like that.
and then claim this is evidence of a Jewish “group evolutionary strategy” to keep the goyim down.
Whereas Rubin Erdley invents examples of white males behaving badly and then claims that this is evidence of how evil they are. So one side has reality on its side and the other has hate-filled fantasy.
In reality, the vast majority of Jews are good neighbors and Americans and most everyone knows this.
In reality, Rubin Erdely is utterly typical of the MSM and its attitudes.
Only a small minority of bitter losers have organized their worldview around how their misery is the fault of Jewish scheming.
You are familiar with the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem? If not, I’d advise you to familiarize yourself with it. And tell me, what is Rubin Erdley’s worldview organized around? How many others in the MSM have the same worldview?
Don’t forget the little challenge about Sailer.
12/20/2014 7:17 am
Already done, see above (from Sailer’s column “World War C”):
“Thus, we American humans should act like responsible adult human beings and reduce the number of these subhuman dependents of ours who are in America to levels that we can afford to properly care for.”
But perhaps you think it’s harmless fun to call African-Americans “subhumans” who should be reduced in numbers. I do not.
Contrary to your assertion, Rubin Erdely has indeed been widely denounced. After Bradley, a good number of journalists exposing her journalistic malpractice and countering with factual reporting have been people with Jewish-sounding surnames (T. Rees Shapiro at Washington Post, Scott Shapiro at Washington Times, Emily Yoffe at Slate, Hanna Rosin, etc. etc.)
Whether she ever works in media again is something that time will tell, at this point her chances aren’t looking good.
You have a huge chip on your shoulder about Jews. I can’t help you with that.
12/22/2014 4:37 am
Already done
Where was the falsification and inversion of reality?
But perhaps you think it’s harmless fun to call African-Americans “subhumans” who should be reduced in numbers. I do not.
No, I think it’s something called i-r-o-n-i-c h-u-m-o-r designed to get up the noses of heresy-sniffing thoughtpolice. If Sailer’s policies were followed, blacks would be far better off, not just in the US but elsewhere. He’s suggested, for example, that breastfeeding be encouraged in Africa and iodine be added to salt to raise IQ levels. That’s how filled with hate he is.
Contrary to your assertion, Rubin Erdely has indeed been widely denounced.
“Denounced”? You mean called out for being what she is: a white-male-hating fantasist? By whom? Not by the MSM. And how long did it take? How vehement were her defenders against those white males like Richard Bradley who first raised doubts about her ludicrous story? As Sailer is pointing out, the NYT and Co. are now attempting to spin the story away as a failure of esoteric journalistic procedure.
And what about Erdley’s previous hate-mongering? She got away with it until, with the UVA story, she went too far even by MSM standards. And even then they moved with glacial slowness by the standards of the internet age.
After Bradley, a good number of journalists exposing her journalistic malpractice and countering with factual reporting have been people with Jewish-sounding surnames (T. Rees Shapiro at Washington Post, Scott Shapiro at Washington Times, Emily Yoffe at Slate, Hanna Rosin, etc. etc.)
Once he’d been caught out, Bernie Madoff was “exposed” in a similar way. What else would you expect? And is that the Hanna Rosin who wrote about the “End of Men”? Classy dame.
You have a huge chip on your shoulder about Jews. I can’t help you with that.
Don’t worry: it’s balanced by my huge chip about Persons of Color, which I keep on my other shoulder. You see, as a bitter loser, I prefer to base my ideas on what I see in reality, rather than on what decent folk tell me I should think.
4/6/2024 5:20 pm
[…] She’s re-reporting the story? - shots in the dark Kathryn hendley, alex stock and ryan duffin—the three friends of jackie's who sabrina rubin erdely falsely claimed discouraged from her calling the. […]