Rolling Stone Story of Rape Rocks UVA, Raises Doubts


The University of Virginia is presently under scrutiny right after Rolling Stone published an write-up reporting the alleged rape of a female in 2012. The story graphically depicted how 7 guys at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity property assaulted the lady in the course of a get together.

The university’s president, Teresa Sullivan, announced that the school has a difficulty and has begun to outline a series of initiatives to safeguard girls at the college, reviews NBC News.

“The wrongs described in Rolling Stone are appalling and have brought on all of us to re-examine our responsibility to this community,”school President Teresa A. Sullivan wrote in a statement to the university neighborhood. “Rape is an abhorrent crime that has no location in the globe, allow alone on the campuses and grounds of our nation’s colleges and universities.”

Local police are calling on bystanders to support place the story together and prosecute the men who are accountable for the alleged crime.

In reaction to the allegations, the school has suspended all fraternities and linked parties until soon after January 9th, in accordance to Ralph Ellis for CNN.

The school is searching to tighten up regulations on Greek daily life on campus and drinking.

Although many people agree that sexual assault is a expanding dilemma on college campuses, the public and press alike have doubts about the credibility of the Rolling Stone story.

A reporter for The New Republic, Judith Shulevitz, posted on Facebook that she located the story to be “awfully thin” and linked readers to an article written by Richard Bradley, a seasoned magazine editor who worked on some of the famously-fabricated stories written by Stephen Glass.

Then there is the fact that Jackie apparently knew two of her rapists, but they are not named, nor does Rubin Erdely get in touch with them, which is fundamentally a cardinal rule of journalism: If an individual in your story is accused of some thing, you’d greater do your damnedest to give them a opportunity to respond. There is no indicator that Rubin Erdely did so. Why not? Did she not know their names? Would Jackie not inform her? Due to the fact if Rubin Erdely knew their names and didn’t call them, that is horrible journalism and undermines confidence in her reporting. And if she didn’t know their names—well, we’re back in Patrick Witt-land once more.

Erdely claims that the alleged “were type of challenging to get in touch with”, writes Ali Elkin for Bloomberg.

Whilst it’s understandable that identities had been left out of the story, other crucial characteristics had been left out as properly this kind of as qualifiers like “according to Jackie” or “allegedly”. The absence of these tends to make it seem like the occasion is an undisputed truth, when at the moment it is an uninvestigated case.

The sloppy journalism combined with an incredible story that leaves the reader asking some critical queries prospects individuals to question if the story is true at all, writes Robby Soave for Cause.

Leave a Reply