New York Times:
Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday that concluded the widely discredited article was the result of failures at every stage of the editorial process.
The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the story was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”
What we don’t know is what will become of Jackie. Obviously her story was not real but…did something dreadful happen to Jackie? Was she a victim at some point in time?Did the Rolling Stones story invalidate the story of others? Can we move forward? I hope so.
The challenge in moving forward on issues like this, Ferguson, and a veritable cornucopia of “news” of note, is the outrage they generated were predicated on lies. Demonstrable lies. Bald-faced lies. And yet there is no demand for accountability, and worse, those who actively perpetuated the lies, remain free to tell more lies. We, as a society, cannot have an honest conversation about any issue, if one side insists on lying to further their agenda.
You bring up a good point, Steve. What do we do about it?
“On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the story was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.””
Soooo….. she apologized to Rolling Stone readers, her colleagues and any potential sexual assault victim. Odd… I think she is leaving someone out, don’t you?
What do we do about it? We insist upon truth. When we discover that we’ve been lied to, we hold people civilly and criminally liable the outcome, whether direct or indirect. Someone manufactured stories, others aided in their reporting, which created a false outrage. Others incited mob activity, and still more joined the mob. Property was damaged. Innocents were falsely accused. Livelihoods destroyed. The perpetrators hide behind “free speech” and “social justice”, in defense of their actions. Actions predicated on lies. Where’s the justice for the falsely accused? The store-owner whose shop was burned? The cops who were maligned and physically harmed. The fraternity that was attacked? “Oops” isn’t a defense. “We were wrong in THIS case, but,” isn’t a defense. Put Jackie on trial. She’s no victim. Put the reporter on trial. She’s an accessory. Put Rolling Stone on . Put the “hands up don’t shoot” and “burn this b*tch down” guys, on trial, and all those who incited the riots, or further perpetuated the lies.
And most of all, we need to refuse to accept the credibility of those institutions that continue to lie to us.
People are lied about every day on a local blog. Yet no one hold that blog accountable because there is great denial over who is responsible. For instance, today I read that Marty Nohe was a democrat. Everyone knows that isn’t true.
How does one hold made up names responsible for lies in print?
Distinguishing between a difference of opinion or a different vantage point and legally factual error is not easily determined. If government gets it wrong we will chill political speech by criminalizing it. The first amendment is the most important and any attempt to restrict speech using government violence is unacceptable.
Steve is like one of the blind men encountering an elephant who believes his friends must be liars because they report many very different descriptions of reality: the elephant is like a fan, a tree, a snake, a wall while this man in certain the elephant is like a rope.
Ed,
Your premise is flawed, because you assume I cannot see the elephant in its entirety. I never argued that speech should be restricted, your strawman argument to the contrary, nor should someone making an honest factual error face criminal sanction. However, the First Amendment is no license to lie, especially when others are materially harmed as a result of the lies. There’s been both “harm” and “foul”. Those responsible should be held to account.
@Steve Thomas
Sadly, it is next to impossible to get a libel verdict against the press. You have to meet two impossibly high standards:
1) The paper knew the information was false when the published it.
2) The paper published the false information with malicious intent.
All Rolling Stone has to do for their defense is say that they didn’t check out Jackie’s story and they are safe. Since they didn’t check the story out, they can’t know the information to be false.
It’s why you see some US libel cases in England, where libel laws are a little more realistic.
Furby,
You make a good point. However, the report from the Columbia School of journalism, followed by the full retraction, is what makes this different. Then there’s the reporter herself, and the accuser. Three targets.
“The challenge in moving forward on issues like this, Ferguson, and a veritable cornucopia of “news” of note, is the outrage they generated were predicated on lies. Demonstrable lies. Bald-faced lies. And yet there is no demand for accountability, and worse, those who actively perpetuated the lies, remain free to tell more lies. We, as a society, cannot have an honest conversation about any issue, if one side insists on lying to further their agenda.”
Since you pulled Ferguson into this … not sure what lies the news was propogating in your opinion. What I saw play out in Ferguson was a coverup that allowed Officer Wilson to get away with telling a story that was nonsensical – shooting a kid who was running at him blind, head down at a 90 degree angle, by standing his ground rather than sidestapping the kid who couldn’t see him (as any human would do in that situation). And shooting at the supposedly-charging kid’s head rather than his huge torso.
As opposed to what we can be fairly sure really happened, if we look at dozens of witness statements and use common sense – they kid was moving forward and occasionally tugging at his pants, Wilson assumed he had a gun and was reaching for it, and shot him on that basis. Not the basis that the kid was charging headfirst towards him free safety style.
There was some very real dishonesty in Ferguson. Not so much by the news media.
The “hands up don’t shoot” saying is not derived from any particular media claim about Michael Brown saying that, I don’t believe.
The fact that some white people get angry about black people saying that, i.e. about black people having freedom of speech in America, galls me. It’s okay for Tea Party members to scream about “Obamacare” as if their balls are caught in a mousetrap; it’s okay for Ted Cruz to tell us the world is on fire; it’s okay for white people generally to carry on in any insane fashion that they wish. But black people need to fact-check themselves to some rigorous standard, apparently.
As to Jackie, I agree that she’s no victim. There’s no evidence that any bad thing happened to her. But – at least she was only using this story to get attention, not to actually prosecute some man to make herself feel better and to get even more attention.
On a scale of evil, Danmell Ndonye is a 10. Crystal Mangum’s a 9 or a 10. Jackie’s only up around a 3.
Refresher course here. Who are these people?
How do we change it?
Step 1. How about apologizing to the actual victims of false narratives?
Step 2. How about accountability? Not ONE persons in this cluster fu$k has lost their job. Really?
Step 3. How about advocate journalist tell the true story rather than do what this ‘journalist’ did?
Still boggles my mind that the very first public statement this person made was to apologize to everyone BUT the very people she harmed. And she still has a job?
No one knows the true story.
The Washington Post came the closest to getting to the truth.
The problem is, and this isn’t directed at UVSA, but things like that do happen on campuses. I have told people here that I had a fairly close friend in college that it happened to on a different campus. The frat house was suspended for at least a year.
@Rick Bentley
I agree Rick, I don’t put the blame squarely on Jackie. I put it on Ms. Erdley, rolling stone editors and rolling stone and anyone else who pushed this obviously fake story.
It is true that the story was obviously fake. It was horrific enough that it was hard to believe. The most obvious interpretation of a woman telling that story is that she is making it up.
Part of the trouble with our society being so increasingly polarized is that everyone gets away with lies. Presidents do, Congressmen do, Agency heads do. NSA Directors do.
And in part because of our polarized nature, wealthy bankers and business owners do too.
It filters down to the media as well.
If you can reinforce the right wing’s view of the world, or can reinforce the left wing’s view of the world, you can have at it without fear of being called out for mistruth or being punished for it.
You don’t seem to have any consequences for lying.
The most obvious interpretation of a woman telling that story is that she is making it up.
– what? I’m not saying that at all. It could have been true and we should treat every event as such. What I’m saying is that even after it was debunked there were many who continued to push it. Even the in your face evidence still for some reason or another continued to defend this crock.
Until we can call balls and strikes evenly and have any amount of accountability this crap will continue. This woman apologized to everyone BUT the very people she harmed. And she still has a job? Really? Noting is going to change.
Are you speaking of the reporter or of Jackie? I think the reporter should be fired. I think Jackie should be expelled on honor code violation.
Too many people now will not speak up over sexual misconduct.
The point that I think some have missed is that rape on campuses isn’t someone jumping out of the bushes that you don’t know. It is generally someone you know or have contact with in some way. Some is date rape and some is acquaintance rape. On campuses it is rarely stranger rape.
I’m trying to say that, from a journalist’s standpoint, if someone tells you a story like that, you have a responsibility to conform elements of it before you take it seriously. The story had elements in it that are quite hard to believe.
Some of the elements were hard to believe, some weren’t.
“I think the reporter should be fired. I think Jackie should be expelled on honor code violation.”
I agree.
@Rick Bentley
Rick Bentley :
On a scale of evil, Danmell Ndonye is a 10. Crystal Mangum’s a 9 or a 10. Jackie’s only up around a 3.
Sorry, but the false rape scale was pegged at 10 by Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley back in the late 1980s. “The Rev” should be behind bars, but instead he speaks at the DNC convention, has a talk show and is an adviser to The Executive.
By that standard, maybe Jackie will be an adviser to Hillary Clinton if she wins.
But as for Al Sharpton, I’ll offer a deal to the left. You take Al Sharpton off the air, and we’ll take Oliver North off the air. Any takers?
Who s this “we” who is going to take Ollie North off the air? I didn’t know he was on the air still.
Rape victims have always been protected – for good reason. That’s difficult with investigative journalism. In this case they didn’t interview the alleged offenders. The two don’t have to go together.
This didn’t help the real victims at all. That’s not just lying, that’s a horrible crime
Rick, re:Ferguson, your comments prove my point. All of the forensic evidence, and an overwhelming amount of eye-witness testimony supported Darren Wilson’s statements of the event, and completely debunked the “hands up don’t shoot” lies told by the accomplice in the robbery. The grand jury report, as well as the DOJ investigation, also support this. You yourself continue to propagate a false narrative, that is contrary to the evidence.
Pretty surprised that Rolling Stone hasn’t canned anyone. They have, on occasion, done good work in the past but this episode seems to say that they’re no longer interested in at least trying to do good journalism.
The call for punishment of speech is partisan and will be selective. Friends of the power establishment will get a wink and a nod and enemies will be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law. Whatever justice can be eked out from prosecuting “lies” will create injustice 10 fold by chilling speech. Let’s take a life lesson and move on.
The best response to lies is to tell your “truth”….not to keep screaming liar, liar. But some people will not accept that their truth is not universal and that someone else could have a different viewpoint or make a different conclusion from the same set of shared facts. It is egotistical to believe that one’s reality is the only truthful one and everyone else is living in a fantasy of lies.
@Steve, the blind man is sure that he can “see” the elephant in it’s entirety.
I agree that Al Sharpton is more evil than Jackie.
Steve : “You yourself continue to propagate a false narrative, that is contrary to the evidence.”
Nothing personal, but this issue gets my goat. You are misled or deluded if you feel the evidence fits Wilson’s narrative more than it does mine. You might as well believe that the Easter Bunny pulled the trigger. I’m not sure whether you read through the witness statements for yourself, whether you tried to process the evidence outside the phony framework that the “prosecutor” took pains to put it into. I think that if really delve into it you’ll see that most witnesses drew a consistent picture, which is a believable one. Whereas Wilson’s story about the kid charging at him and then being shot through the top of the head is unbelievable.
Then there is the fact that neither Rick nor Steve were there. I suppose its whose narrative you buy in to.
With Darryl Wilson, I think the facts overwhelmingly lead to his innocence.
“an overwhelming amount of eye-witness testimony supported Darren Wilson’s statements of the event,” – that is false
“and completely debunked the “hands up don’t shoot” lies told by the accomplice in the robbery. ” – that is true.
@Ed Myers
Ed, only a fool thinks the truth is relative. A lie, is a lie. Once proven false, no amount of contrary argument will transform it into truth. Jackie lied. The reporter propagated the lie. People were harmed as a result. Dorian Johnson provided false testimony (lied) as well as did several others. An entire community was harmed. Now, I’m not advocating throwing op/ed writers in jail for expressing their opinions. That is the essence of free speech. But, people who knowingly, purposefully, intentionally, and/or negligently lie, and innocents are harmed as a result of that lie, shouldn’t be able to use “free speech” as a defense. We have libel, perjury, and fraud laws that say you don’t have a blanket right to lie.
@Rick Bentley
Rick, I read the reports. Once the Feds got involved, the forensics reports were released, the weight of credible eye witness testimony did in fact support Darren Wilson’s version. You disagreeing doesn’t make it false.
And there you have it…it was all a conspiracy, right Ed? Too bad all that CSI stuff supported Wilson. The DOJ went all over that case, trying to make a civil rights case. Couldn’t do it, could they. So it must have been a conspiracy…now who is deluded?
Sorry, Ed, my last comment was directed at Rick.
Rick, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” was a lie. The DOJ report concluded this. The Coroner concluded this. Heck, even the Washington Post gave it 4 Pinocchios (see hands up don’t shoot did not happen in Ferguson). No, I don’t think your somehow more insightful regarding what happened.
not only is he still on the air, still gives paid talks – he has also been promoted in retirement (at least Fox advertises him having a promotion that he does not correct).
I thought he had gotten farmed out along with the dodo.
So Blue is a Norther. 🙄
@Steve Thomas
it is amazing to me how many ‘respected’ people will still do the ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ thing even though it has been debunked. It was not true and they should not repeat it. But if you keep saying something over and over, some people believe it to be true – it happens by commenters on this and other blogs too.
“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” is not a claim about specifics of the Brown shooting. It’s just not. You’re choosing to see it that way.
As far as Steve’s claims about forensic evidence, etc., that is bologna. I’m not looking to argue with most of Wilson’s narrative. But the part about the kid charging him, and he shoots him from directly in front while he’s charging, and the bullet goes through the top of his head, is absurd. The majority of witness statements describe the more plausible scenario – the kid was looking down when he got shot through the head. He was neither charging at Wilson, nor standing still.
It’s not that Wilson murdered the kid. What happened was, Brown didn’t stop, didn’t surrender, was twitching, and got shot. Rather than deal with the inevitable fallout, Wilson and the Ferguson PD crafted a rather unbelievable story. Due to personal and instritutional bias, the “prosecutor” worked very hard to frame that story as plausible, rather than trying to get towards truth. It happened in broad daylight. Anyone can see what happened.
I’m talking about this narrow issue. Not about rioting. Not about self-destructive behavior in the black community. Not about Michael Brown, and not about how the incident started – which I don’t think we’ll ever know.
Just about the fact that Wilson’s story strains credulity. And then the prosecutor worked hard to make it look credible. And subsequently, a chunk of white America swallowed the story whole. To the point that Steve is claiming that forensic evidence supports the story – hardly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_up,_don%27t_shoot
“As one protester remarked, “Even if you don’t find that it’s true, it’s a valid rallying cry… it’s just a metaphor.”
@Rick Bentley
“And subsequently, a chunk of white America swallowed the story whole. ”
Apparently, so did the DOJ that looked at all of the evidence.
The hands up don’t shoot was an inaccurate short-cut for saying Brown was not a threat to Wilson when he was fatally shot. It was a meme for expressing anger with police who seemed to more quickly shoot young dark-skinned men who proved not to have a weapon than the population in general.
There is still a reasonable difference in opinion on whether Brown was giving up or remained a threat to Wilson, but the laws are written to give the benefit of the doubt to police officers. As long as they “feel” threatened they are immune from second guessing. It is also true that police know the vocabulary to use (and know not to say anything until coached) to make virtually any situation match the definition of a legal shooting. The operative word is “feel threatened” and it is a big loophole. It is nearly impossible to prove a police office committed homicide on the job and that was the case here too.
It is not accurate (some would say a lie) to say that because Wilson meet the legal definition of self defense that anyone who believes he was not justified in taking the actions he did is perpetuating a “bald-faced” lie.
I go through all that to show how attempts to criminalize “lies” is a back door way to punish people who express beliefs different from one’s own. That is the danger. Unless there is a direct and immediate danger to civil order (e.g yelling Fire! to create a dangerous panic) , no speech should be criminalized since everyone has the mechanism to check the veracity of any statement and the reputation of the speaker before taking any action to that speech.
Civil action (tort) however is totally appropriate response to libel and falsehoods and that is what keeps reputable businesses from engaging in damaging speech.
You mean like using a false “metaphor” to convey that police routinely shoot dark skinned suspects attempting to surrender with hands raised, designed to inflame and incite, which then resulted in the assassination of two NYC cops and the shooting of two cops in Ferguson? Is that the type of direct and immediate danger to civil order to which you refer?
“As far as Steve’s claims about forensic evidence, etc., that is bologna. I’m not looking to argue with most of Wilson’s narrative. But the part about the kid charging him, and he shoots him from directly in front while he’s charging, and the bullet goes through the top of his head, is absurd.”
Again, it is YOU that is wrong. The forensics (yah know, all that geometry, balistics, and a whole host of data regarding the physics of a shooting….YAH MR. WHITE SCIENCE!) fully supported the officer’s claim, and thus, the finding of “justifiable homicide”. All of the investigations by the various agencies reached the same conclusion: Officer Wilson was telling the truth. Now, you must understand that (SCIENCE) has studied the affects of life-or-death situations, and how the body’s reaction when faced with these situations shapes perception to be more managable, and prepares the body for action (Vsion narrows, pupils dialate, adrenalin floods the system, fine motor-skills diminish, gross-motor strength increases), but had Officer Wilson been manufacturing portions of his testimony out of whole-cloth, the (YEAH! SCIENCE MR. WHITE) wouldn’t have supported his claims.
Also, the suspect, having been shot at least once, his body, in shock, reacting to a fight-or-die scenario reacted in a pure survival mode: He charged his opponent. Logic centers had shut-down with the first wound, which occurred while he tried to beat Wilson in his cruiser, and take his sidearm. Adrenalin and fear were in-charge. He retreated, reversed, and charged the stunned officer, also suffering blunt-trauma, and adrenalin over-load. The officer fired, several shots. Lacking the fine motor-skills a calm person would have, the shots impacted center mass, but rose with the rapid recoil of the firearm, until one went through the top of the assailants head. As the assailant was falling, another shot went through his back.
This is what the forensics concluded. Had the (YEAH MR.WHITE!) science been flawed, the FBI, AND the DOJ, would have pointed this out. They found now fault with the conclusions.
But the coroners report supported his claims. DNA was found inside the cruiser, on his gun, on his uniform, and in a pattern moving toward, not away, from the officer.
But to get back to my original point, in both cases, the national discussion was driven by false narratives (ie. LIES), and real damage resulted. Other Cops were assaulted, and some even died, due in part to the propagation of the false narrative of a white cop, shooting an unarmed black man, for racial reasons.
@Rick Bentley
The individuals who reported that Brown had his hands up and/or was not advancing or running towards Wilson have been refuted. The U.S. DOJ report ‘regarding the criminal investigation into the shooting death of Michael Brown’ states “The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.” The report also states that; “Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson.” and “There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. Again, all of these statements are contradicted by the physical and forensic evidence, which also undermines the credibility of their accounts of other aspects of the incident, including their assertion that Brown had his hands up in a surrender position when Wilson shot him.”
“”Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson.”
“Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson.”
“Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson.”
YEAH! SCIENCE!
The religious right is up in arms over the fear that their speech against gay marriage will be criminalized as inciting hatred, discrimination and violence against a protected class.
The idea that speech can be criminalize because 12 jurors thought it was false is a rabbit hole that neither the left nor the right will enjoy. Those in the center will enjoy seeing the lunatic fringes end up in jail for lying, but that is no reason to do it.
And yet, there are people being fined by the government, for exercising their free speech. Pretty damn shallow rabbit hole…
@Ed Myers
And here you begin another false narrative, in much the same way as the Alyssa Marino, ABC57 Indianapolis “reporter” bagan her narrative. Christian Pizza place, that had NEVER been asked to provide PIZZA (Who would have PIZZA at their wedding?), was asked a hypothetical question, and answered…within 30 minutes they were receiving death-threats. Yep, the “religious right” is just imagining all of this. All in their “Jesus-warped” brains.
Ed.. you are a rare breeed. Rare indeed,
@Steve. What did I say that was a “false narrative” that you wish you could criminalize?
You really are stuck on using violence to force people to accept your version of reality.
..the religious left was just imagining the abuse of Ferguson residents by the police and judicial system?
Thank you Ed for your particularly well-written post (#44).
Took me a minute to catch the Breaking Bad refrerences in Steve’s post #46. Hope no one misreads that.
We’ve got two competing stories about how the kid gets shot directly through the top of his head. Directly through the top.
A. He was looking down and got shot, by a nervous police officer who was probably sure the guy had a weapon. Note that the body is subsequently left in the street for hours, while they are presumably looking for that weapon.
B. He was charging rapidly towards Wilson, head COMPLETELY DOWN so that he was charging blind, and Wilson stood directly in front of him -in wide open space – stands directly in front of him rather than sidestepping the blind attacker, and shoots him through the head DELIBERATELY (by Wilson’s testimony) rather than aiming at his large torso.
IMO the only reason anyone can possibly choose to believe B is because they see the witnesses to A as devalued because of ostensible race bias.
Multiple witnesses testify to A. Officer Wilson testifies to B.
You seem to be leaving out the multiple witnesses who testified to Officer Wilson’s ‘B’ as well. Only a few of the ‘witnesses’ testified to ‘A’ and most, if not all of those were proven liars due to forensic evidence.
Why are so many people so anti-science/flat earthers in this day and age.
Jackson – what you say is not true. It’s fair to assume that you didn’t read through the evidence.
(either that, or you’re just stupid).
[ahem….big brother is watching] Please don’t make me have to defend Jackson. I often disagree with Jackson but he isn’t stupid.
Let me clarify my perspective on this – I’m not saying it was not a justified shooting from Wilson’s perspective.
I’m just saying that the story he tells about Brown charging at him, and him shooting him through the top of the head while he charges, is clearly not true.