Autopsy of Rolling Stone's "Rape on Campus" debunked story due out today 8pm

[tinydancer]

I'm really looking forward to this review being released. I've had it with the "whacked out media over the top rush to get the headline and the truth be damned " so called journalism today.

Whether we are dealing with a news source like NBC actually editing George Zimmerman's 911 call and forever branding him a racist who profiled Trayvon or Hands up don't shoot bullshit we were fed for months on end with protests and riots over another lie, all the way to last week's mega freaking lies about what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was about, I am maxxed with the disgusting reporting we are witnessing today.

I hope to see some heads roll over this one.

"If the report is highly critical, it "will have an enormous impact on Rolling Stone. It's going to affect the credibility of Rolling Stone going forward, period," said Stuart Benjamin, a Duke University Law School professor.

Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism will release its report at 8 p.m. on Sunday, with a news conference at 12 p.m. on Monday. Dean Steve Coll, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, headed the review.

The findings will appear on Rolling Stone's website, RollingStone.com, and the website of the Columbia Journalism Review, cjr.org."

CBC News - Rolling Stone awaits review of debunked gang rape story

 

[Meathead]

White frats are irresistible to left-wing tabloid journalists. It is the embodiment of what they consider white privilege.

 

[tinydancer]

Whoa. Rolling Stone is apologizing and retracting the story.

 

[tinydancer]

Report at this link. Boy oh boy.

This is outrageous. This line is just the tip of the iceberg. They ended up smearing a university and a fraternity with no verification of the supposed perps.

.....but the confrontation ended when Rolling Stone's editors decided to go ahead without knowing the lifeguard's name or verifying his existence.


Rolling Stone and UVA The Columbia School of Journalism Report Rolling Stone

 

[Missourian]

The new headline is on Drudge.

The story can easily be hewn down to two simple sentences.

Their personal biases convinced them believe her story because it fit their narrative. They believed it because they wanted to believe it, and then cut journalistic corners because they just knew it had to be true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/b...e-on-rape-at-university-of-virginia.html?_r=0

 

[Disir]

I agree with the above. It was a juicy little story and, ultimately, that was far more important.

 

[tinydancer]

The pity of this bloody mess was that there were rape cases on university and college campuses that were verified but the reporter decided to pull a journalist's version of a Cecile B. De Milel production and go bigger and better and more fantastic than the other true tales.

Rape on campus is a reality. Of that there is no doubt. And although no one can ever prevent rape from happening how the individual institutions handle these cases really needs to be addressed.

Sadly this Rolling Stone article has soured the issue. This debacle was so over the top bad I fear that no one is going to want to go near the topic again for some time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

True, not true? who cares? What difference does it make?

 

[whitehall]

Autopsy? Interesting way to put it. Are they trying to avoid the standard phrases used to debunk fake stories? Why are pop-culture idiots who work for R.S. trusted with real stories that don't involve bands trashing hotel rooms?

 

[Disir]

No, they blew this out of the water when they tied some BS stats and then did everything under the sun to screw a columnist that (as obnoxious as it was) pointed that out. By the time the RS article came out, they clearly just wanted a piece of the pie.

From the get go this has been blown out of proportion. It makes it harder for someone that has been sexually assaulted to both be believed and to come forward.