It's been a rough few days for Rolling Stone Magazine, but it's been an even rougher few days for facts, which seems to have lost their place in American journalism. After publishing a much-heralded story about a horrific-sounding gang rape at the University of Virginia, Rolling Stone last week had to admit it had not done the work of contacting all parties to ascertain they were really dealing with a true account, and that the credibility of their one real source was now in doubt.
Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely reported the story, Jackie said or did nothing that made her, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question her credibility. Jackie's friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported her account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of Phi Psi, the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but that they had questions about the evidence.
In the face of new information reported by the Washington Post and other news outlets, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account. The fraternity has issued a formal statement denying the assault and asserting that there was no "date function or formal event" on the night in question. Jackie herself is now unsure if the man she says lured her into the room where the rape occurred, identified in the story, as "Drew," was a Phi Psi brother. According to the Washington Post, "Drew" actually belongs to a different fraternity and when contacted by the paper, he denied knowing Jackie. Jackie told Rolling Stone that after she was assaulted, she ran into "Drew" at a UVA pool where they both worked as lifeguards. In its statement, the Phi Psi says none of its members worked at the pool in the fall of 2012. A friend of Jackie's (who we were told would not speak to Rolling Stone) told the Washington Post that he found Jackie that night a mile from the school's fraternities. She did not appear to be "physically injured at the time" but was shaken. She told him that that she had been forced to have oral sex with a group of men at a fraternity party, but he does not remember her identifying a specific house. Other friends of Jackie's told the Washington Post that they now have doubts about her narrative, but Jackie told the Washington Post that she firmly stands by the account she gave to Erdely.
We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate. Given all of these reports, however, we have come to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie's request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment – the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day. We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.
So a woman tells Rolling Stone she was raped, and asks them not to contact those she's accusing because it's sensitive. They agree, and report the story with her side only. Another media source does real reporting that pokes all kinds of holes in the woman's story, and at this point Rolling Stone realizes it got taken and at least at that point has the integrity to admit it - not that they had much choice with everyone clearly able to see their story's credibility is gone.
Do note Rolling Stone's defense that it talked to Jackie's friends and "rape activists on campus," who may very well do good work but who will certainly have a bias in favor of supporting a woman claiming to have been raped. What gave Rolling Stone the idea that an affirmation from "rape activists" would serve as a substitute for giving those who were accused the opportunity to be heard?
Here's what gave them that idea, and it's the same thing the propelled the Ferguson coverage and subsequent riots: Narrative journalism.
Rolling Stone reported the story as it did, and trusted the sources it trusted, because it all fit the narrative of out-of-control campus sexual assault. Likewise, the national media jumped all over the racist-white-cop-kills-unarmed-black-man angle on Ferguson because that fits the narrative they enjoy pushing.
It works in politics too. Everything out of Sarah Palin's mouth is scrutinized for signs of stupidity because the narrative is that Sarah Palin is stupid. When mind-blowingly stupid statement eminiate from the mouth of Joe Biden, by contrast, that's "Joe being Joe."
When the Congressional Budget Office "scores" a spending or taxing bill (like ObamaCare), its "score" is taken as gospel because the CBO is "nonpartisan," never mind the fact that it's run by Keynesian liberals and is required to assume the accuracy of whatever numbers bill sponsors give it without questioning them. The narrative says the CBO is trustworthy, so that's how its work is regarded in reporting. Rather than the CBO's work being reported as an assertion to be scrutinized, the CBO's work is regarded as the scrutiny itself.
The larger problem is that the media loves its narratives, and if a story seems to fit their favored narrative, they will not only run with that story, they will consider it necessary only to talk to sources that back the narrative. That's why Rolling Stone thought it was on solid ground talking to "rape activists" but not the alleged perpetrators. Surely rape activists wouldn't lie, right? Well, maybe they wouldn't as far as they know, but they may well have a natural bias that leads them to believe certain things without questioning them much.
The media need to let go of their narratives and just report real facts, real news. Of course, in order to do that, they would have to know what real facts and real news are. I'm not sure there are many journalists left who do.
