It's About Time...

[Pilgrim]

...that a victim of libelous, irresponsible reporting by the liberal media has decided to fight back. The fraternity at the University of Virginia that was defamed by a totally false gang rape story in the Rolling Stone has decided to "pursue all available legal action against the magazine". Hopefully this effort will include the author of this malicious fiction - Sabrina Rubin Erdely - personally as a defendant, and substantial monetary damages will be collected from both her and the sleazy rag for which she works. Fortunately this episode didn't drag out like the ordeal imposed on the Duke lacrosse team by a lying prostitute and a corrupt prosecutor. Maybe some of our conservative politicians will show the same amount of spine in confronting the MSM.

The fraternity's statement follows a scathing report from Columbia Journalism School that Rolling Stone published Sunday night, detailing the many faults in the magazine's November feature story on sexual assault at UVA. In Rolling Stone's article, Phi Psi members were accused of gang-raping UVA student "Jackie" during a fraternity date function on September 28, 2012

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/uva-fraternity-suing-rolling-stone-2015-4#ixzz3WZtC4sDX

 

[muttly]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Erdely

 

[cheri1122]

Oooh, the irony: having to give props to the grandaddy of what you refer to as the "liberal media", for exposing the deficiencies of one of it's own. It's downright delicious, lol.
Erdely's reporting was certainly irresponsible, but calling Rolling Stone a "sleazy rag" is just as much a malicious fiction as you lay at Erdely's door. It was Rolling Stone that asked for an independent review, and Erdely has issued the following statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/b...olling-stone-rape-article-sabrina-erdely.html

That's the kind of honesty we don't see much of these days, and we especially don't see it when the grandaddy of fake "news" [to the point that they're widely known as Faux News] gets it wrong.
That's the difference between journalists who want to get it right, and those who want ratings, above all else.It's also the difference between an American owner who cares about his country, and Rupert Murdoch, who isn't and doesn't.

 

[paullud]

...that a victim of libelous, irresponsible reporting by the liberal media has decided to fight back. The fraternity at the University of Virginia that was defamed by a totally false gang rape story in the Rolling Stone has decided to "pursue all available legal action against the magazine". Hopefully this effort will include the author of this malicious fiction - Sabrina Rubin Erdely - personally as a defendant, and substantial monetary damages will be collected from both her and the sleazy rag for which she works. Fortunately this episode didn't drag out like the ordeal imposed on the Duke lacrosse team by a lying prostitute and a corrupt prosecutor. Maybe some of our conservative politicians will show the same amount of spine in confronting the MSM.

Anytime the media jumps on these stories that are false they ruin lives and can cast doubt on real victims. These matters need to be addressed with more discretion instead of being used as a ratings tool.

 

[xiggi]

If you think any of them care much for anything more than dollars your being fooled. My guess is it was more a self protection thing than it was some grand moral feeling. I believe fox has apologized more than once for getting things wrong. It's not like anyone is being punished for false reporting at RS.

 

[cheri1122]

It's really sad, that people believe money is the sole [or biggest] motivator. News flash: there are those who do what they do because they believe in it. Which isn't to say they do it for free, but there are investigative journalists, and teachers, doctors, nurses, coaches, prosecutors, defense attorneys, all kinds of people who value what they contribute, more than what it pays them personally.
If you read what Erdely wrote after the investigation, you ought to know that she is being punished, and probably always will be, for her mistakes and sloppiness.
Rolling Stone will be punished too, with a loss of credibility, unless they can convince people they are better than it looks - and granted, so far, Wenner doesn't seem to care too much. Erdely, though, is suffering - an impression I've never got from a single one of the [numerous] apologies Fox has offered.

 

[xiggi]

Your the one who brought up the owners now your bringing up nurses? Come on cheri let's stay on track.

 

[paullud]

Any apology given in those circumstances might as well start out with "the legal department has issued the following apology". That writer isn't speaking for herself and likely had little to do with writing the statement. They are facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and they aren't about to leave the apology up to her.

 

[muttly]

Oooh, the irony: having to give props to the grandaddy of what you refer to as the "liberal media", for exposing the deficiencies of one of it's own. It's downright delicious, lol.
Erdely's reporting was certainly irresponsible, but calling Rolling Stone a "sleazy rag" is just as much a malicious fiction as you lay at Erdely's door. It was Rolling Stone that asked for an independent review, and Erdely has issued the following statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/b...olling-stone-rape-article-sabrina-erdely.html

That's the kind of honesty we don't see much of these days, and we especially don't see it when the grandaddy of fake "news" [to the point that they're widely known as Faux News] gets it wrong.
That's the difference between journalists who want to get it right, and those who want ratings, above all else.It's also the difference between an American owner who cares about his country, and Rupert Murdoch, who isn't and doesn't.

Wow, someone fails to perform their most basic journalistic tasks in reporting a story and harm a University's reputation as well some of their members and she should be commended for her honesty? If she wanted to get it right, there wouldn't have been a compete breakdown of her story.
BTW, she still has her job, just like everyone else involved with the story at Rolling Stone. They should stick to articles about music.

 

[Pilgrim]

Oooh, the irony: having to give props to the grandaddy of what you refer to as the "liberal media", for exposing the deficiencies of one of it's own. It's downright delicious, lol.
Erdely's reporting was certainly irresponsible, but calling Rolling Stone a "sleazy rag" is just as much a malicious fiction as you lay at Erdely's door. It was Rolling Stone that asked for an independent review, and Erdely has issued the following statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/b...olling-stone-rape-article-sabrina-erdely.html

That's just funny, if not pathetic. What other choice did they have? The Rolling Stone article became widely discredited almost as soon as it was published, not only by the Charlottsville Police Dept. but also multiple media sources . One can only imagine the panic that erupted in the offices of Rolling Stone when they found out the Erdely article they had published was indeed malicious fiction - totally fabricated by her in concert with the so-called "victim". If this libelous bilge shouldn't be laid at Erdely's door, where should it go? Of course their lawyers began the damage control process which no doubt included contracting the Columbia Journalism review, which only documented what was already glaringly obvious.

Regarding Erdely's statement - it's a joke. Does she expect the general public to feel any type of sympathy for her, totally disregarding the malicious intent of this hit piece? Any respectable publication would have already fired her as part of the damage control process and an effort to present some semblance of credibility. Even the NY Times finally forced Jayson Blair's resignation after discovering his plagiarism and fabricated articles. Instead this sleazy rag seems to be depending on a few mea culpas along with the short memories of the general public and the indifference of their loyal liberal readers. Fortunately, the victims of their vitriol have decided not to take their abuse lying down.

 

[Ragman]

Oooh, the irony: having to give props to the grandaddy of what you refer to as the "liberal media", for exposing the deficiencies of one of it's own. It's downright delicious, lol.
Erdely's reporting was certainly irresponsible, but calling Rolling Stone a "sleazy rag" is just as much a malicious fiction as you lay at Erdely's door. It was Rolling Stone that asked for an independent review, and Erdely has issued the following statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/b...olling-stone-rape-article-sabrina-erdely.html

That's the kind of honesty we don't see much of these days, and we especially don't see it when the grandaddy of fake "news" [to the point that they're widely known as Faux News] gets it wrong.
That's the difference between journalists who want to get it right, and those who want ratings, above all else.It's also the difference between an American owner who cares about his country, and Rupert Murdoch, who isn't and doesn't.

Sorry Cherri, I have to disagree with you on this one.
Even I consider the article just short of a criminal act on the reporters, err, story tellers part.

 

[davekc]

While Fox News has its faults, I don't think I would compare the Rolling Stone mess to "it happens all the time at Fox". Just not seeing it.

 

[paullud]

While Fox News has its faults, I don't think I would compare the Rolling Stone mess to "it happens all the time at Fox". Just not seeing it.

I think Rolling Stone and Fox News are like just about every other media outlet. They found something that they thought would make them money and garner lots of attention so they ran with it without really digging into it.

 

[Pilgrim]

We're comparing apples and oranges, but does anyone have an example of something Fox News has done that has been comparably libelous - reported as factual NEWS, not opinion?

 

[cheri1122]

Your the one who brought up the owners now your bringing up nurses? Come on cheri let's stay on track.

I was countering your assertion that no one cares for much more than dollars. In many occupations, that's true: banking, investing, plastic surgery, to name a few. But many occupations, including investigative journalism, attract people who are dedicated to their work, believing that it can make a difference.
Rolling Stone is an American owned publisher, [unlike Fox News], employing investigative journalists like Erdely. Yes, she screwed up, big time, but her apology sounds as if she gets it, unlike those who say "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" non apologies that almost blame the viewer/reader for taking offense.

 

[cheri1122]

That's just funny, if not pathetic. What other choice did they have? The Rolling Stone article became widely discredited almost as soon as it was published, not only by the Charlottsville Police Dept. but also multiple media sources . One can only imagine the panic that erupted in the offices of Rolling Stone when they found out the Erdely article they had published was indeed malicious fiction - totally fabricated by her in concert with the so-called "victim". If this libelous bilge shouldn't be laid at Erdely's door, where should it go? Of course their lawyers began the damage control process which no doubt included contracting the Columbia Journalism review, which only documented what was already glaringly obvious.

Regarding Erdely's statement - it's a joke. Does she expect the general public to feel any type of sympathy for her, totally disregarding the malicious intent of this hit piece? Any respectable publication would have already fired her as part of the damage control process and an effort to present some semblance of credibility. Even the NY Times finally forced Jayson Blair's resignation after discovering his plagiarism and fabricated articles. Instead this sleazy rag seems to be depending on a few mea culpas along with the short memories of the general public and the indifference of their loyal liberal readers. Fortunately, the victims of their vitriol have decided not to take their abuse lying down.

I didn't read the original RS story, but I've read quite a bit about the aftermath, and not one single person or organization with firsthand knowledge has said that Erdely fabricated a single word of her story, as you allege. The suggestion that Erdely is like Jayson Blair is indicative of a failure to see the forest and the trees both.
Any respectable publication that fired her as "part of the damage control process and effort to present some semblance of credibility" would not deserve either respect or credibility, because the failures involved were more than Erdely's mistake [trusting the source, and succumbing to the desire to not inflict further trauma by insisting on verification of accusations]. The errors and omissions are many, but they are systemic, and firing the writer in this case would merely be a whitewash that doesn't address and correct those problems. Of course, she may well kiss her credibility goodbye, but I think she's learned a "brutal" lesson, as she put it, about doing it the right way. Whether Rolling Stone and other publications employing investigative journalists have as well remains to be seen.

 

[LDB]

If schools of journalism were actually teaching journalism this likely would be nothing more than a textbook hypothetical for educational purposes only. Unfortunately, that's not what they teach.

 

[cheri1122]

If schools of journalism were actually teaching journalism this likely would be nothing more than a textbook hypothetical for educational purposes only. Unfortunately, that's not what they teach.

Please tell us: what do they teach? And how do you know about it?

 

[muttly]

. The suggestion that Erdely is like Jayson Blair is indicative of a failure to see the forest and the trees both.

I think it's that they both share a common trait, which is irresponsible journalism.

 

[LDB]

There's no point. It would do no good anyway.