Columbia's UVA Rape Report: Jackie Lied. End of Story?

No one was fired from Rolling Stone. Not even Erdely.


Karen Blaha

Sabrina Rubin Erdely and the editors of Rolling Stone accepted the claims of a single source as gospel truth—even when every brain cell they possessed should have told them otherwise, according to a fascinating report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism that details the magazine's failings with respect to its now debunked story from last November, "A Rape on Campus."

The report was released Sunday night. At 12,000 words, it's actually longer than the story it concerns. While it makes for a fascinating reading, nothing contained within will be surprising or earth-shattering for readers already familiar with the debacle.

Given all the (entirely fair) criticism Erdely has taken for failing to vet the story, I was most struck by the undeniable fact that the author actually did press Jackie for key details about the identities of the perpetrators. In this sense, she possessed at least some of the right impulses. She believed Jackie, but she knew she needed names in order to corroborate. The problems came when Jackie simply refused or dodged these key questions. Despite misgivings, Erdely—and, to be fair, her editors—charged blindly ahead. From the report:

Jackie proved to be a challenging source. At times, she did not respond to Erdely's calls, texts and emails. At two points, the reporter feared Jackie might withdraw her cooperation. Also, Jackie refused to provide Erdely the name of the lifeguard who had organized the attack on her. She said she was still afraid of him. That led to tense exchanges between Erdely and Jackie, but the confrontation ended when Rolling Stone's editors decided to go ahead without knowing the lifeguard's name or verifying his existence. After that concession, Jackie cooperated fully until publication.

It's actually even worse than that. When Erdely told Jackie that she really did need to know the name of Jackie's date (the lifeguard who supposedly masterminded the attack), Jackie stopped answering her phone calls and texts for about two weeks. Eventually, Erdely left Jackie another voicemail in which the writer agreed to stop trying to contact the lifeguard and instead use a pseudonym, Drew. After that, Jackie magically reappeared, calling Erdely back "quickly," according to the report.

Jackie, in fact, displayed impressive levels of self-preservation and rational behavior—at least, from the perspective of a highly disturbed person whose goal was to spread an incredible lie without exposing it as such. She was highly detailed in her account of the crime, gave descriptions, and recalled (wholly invented) conversations with great accuracy. And she studiously avoided any line of questioning that would have exposed the lie. If a particular question posed a threat, she either invented a reason why it couldn't be answered, or simply stopped responding.

Some of these inventions were rather colorful—and make it impossible to write her off as merely misremembering her trauma. She told Erdely that her friend Ryan—one of the infamous three friends who had met with her after the rape—would not talk to the reporter about that night. According to the report:

On Sept. 11, Erdely traveled to Charlottesville and met Jackie in person for the first time, at a restaurant near the UVA campus. With her digital recorder running, the reporter again asked about speaking to Ryan. "I did talk to Ryan," Jackie disclosed. She said she had bumped into him and had asked if he would be interested in talking to Rolling Stone. Jackie went on to quote Ryan's incredulous reaction: "No! … I'm in a fraternity here, Jackie, I don't want the Greek system to go down, and it seems like that's what you want to happen. … I don't want to be a part of whatever little shit show you're running."

"Ryan is obviously out," Erdely told Jackie a little later.

That conversation was completely invented by Jackie; she never spoke to Ryan about Erdely's story.

And yet Erdely's editor, Sean Woods, decided to put the "shit show" quote in the final article, even though neither of them tried to reach Ryan to confirm that he had indeed said this. If either had contacted Ryan, he would have told them that the quote was a lie—likely unmasking Jackie as a liar with that one basic act of journalistic integrity.

(The article's mention of two other rapes at Phi Kappa Psi were also exposed as mere conjecture from a single, highly unreliable source… you guessed it: Jackie.)

Despite these mistakes, no one at Rolling Stone thinks their fact-checking process is systematically broken: they just screwed up this one time, they say. While that's an eye-rolling assertion, I think I know what caused them to take leave of their senses. The source was a rape victim, and the writers and editors were too afraid of appearing unsympathetic to Jackie's plight to treat her stonewalling with the skepticism it deserved.

Even so, Rolling Stone has decided not to fire anyone. Erdely, a contributor, will continue to write for the publication, according to publisher Jann Wenner.

That doesn't seem like a strong enough response to an article that defamed Jackie's friends, the fraternity, and UVA administrators—and mislead not just the campus, but the entire country, about the sexual assault crisis. 

The article has been fully retracted, and no longer appears on Rolling Stone's website.

Richard Bradley and I were the first two journalists to write articles expressing skepticism of Erdely's reporting. You can read my initial article here.

NEXT: VID: Rand Paul: Republicans Can Only Win if "They Become More Live and Let Live"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The source was a rape victim”

    By this time, there’s less than a 1% chance of that being true.

    1. It looks like she was factraped pretty badly in the end.

      1. in the end

        Anally fact raped?

        1. Could have been the other end. Maybe.

        2. It’s even worse than I thought!

        3. Other end, I think. Orally.

          1. Will Steve Smith enter the fray?



  2. From the apology:

    The past few months, since my Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” was first called into question, have been among the most painful of my life. Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.

    Huh. There appears to be a group of victims in all of this who are conspicuously absent from the apology.

    And then there’s this:

    However, in the case of Jackie and her account of her traumatic rape, I did not go far enough to verify her story. I allowed my concern for Jackie’s well-being, my fear of re-traumatizing her, and my confidence in her credibility to take the place of more questioning and more facts. These are mistakes I will not make again.

    In other words, all mistakes were because Sabrina Erdely just cared too damn much and we shouldn’t let this get in the way of the RAPE CRISIS! narrative.

    This is pretty much the exact sort of bullshit apology I expected we were going to get.

    1. I’m pretty sure the nonpology was due to the fact that Rolling Stone and Erdely are about to get hit with some serious lawsuits.

      1. That, and it was such a too-good-to-fail story!!

    2. Well the most severe consequence is:

      Instead, the magazine’s failure may have spread the idea that many women invent rape allegations. (Social scientists analyzing crime records report that the rate of false rape allegations is 2 to 8 percent.) At the University of Virginia, “It’s going to be more difficult now to engage some people ? because they have a preconceived notion that women lie about sexual assault,” said Alex Pinkleton, a UVA student and rape survivor who was one of Erdely’s sources.

      Oh, and some other stuff happened:

      There has been other collateral damage. “It’s completely tarnished our reputation,” said Stephen Scipione, the chapter president of Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity Jackie named as the site of her alleged assault. “It’s completely destroyed a semester of our lives, specifically mine. It’s put us in the worst position possible in our community here, in front of our peers and in the classroom.”

      1. because they have a preconceived notion that women lie about sexual assault

        Not really preconceived anymore, is it? Whoops.

        1. These people were already freaked out that we have a criminal justice system was presumes innocence until proven guilt.

          Now, we just had a huge false rape allegation.

          Not the kind of PR you’d want for the push towards “guilty if we think probably, maybe so” standards.

      2. i love the false ceiling of 8%, slyly modified by including only “social scientists”. if she had included criminologists or law enforcement agencies then the ceiling is 40%

      3. Huh, I heard that the rate of false allegations is 1 in 4.

        What? If they can make up statistics, so can we.

        1. @ JWW: 1 in 2 if you believe the Kanin study on rape. Now, some would argue that it wasn’t a good study because it had a small sample size, a non-random sample population, and imprecise data, but so do, I don’t know, every other feminist study ever cited. So if they can say ‘1 in 4’, ‘1 in 5’, or not ‘1 in 3 men are rapists,’ I say, why can’t we say 1 in 2?

      4. There has been other collateral damage.

        How can this damage be collateral when attacking the fraternities was the entire fucking point in the first place?

    3. Hun Killer

      “This is pretty much the exact sort of bullshit apology I expected we were going to get”

      No it wasn’t the exact sort of bullshit apology you expected. . At least not as far as a few hours ago.

      Here is what I predicted when the apology was announced, and then your response to my post.

      I said , “I don’t expect it to be much of a true apology. Someone who wrote a piece like that in the first place is usually icapable of admitting error.

      It’s gonna be more of a “the devil (rape crisis deniers) made me do it” style of apology. She probably never would have written the story in the first place if it wasn’t for the callus disregard of the rape crisis in the country.

      or maybe a martyr style

      If writing this article brought focus on the real issue of the rape crisis I will gladly suffer the accusations of the deniers”

      Then you replied:

      “I don’t think she’s going to go that route, but I do fully suspect Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valente to declare her some sort of martyr in the next few days.”

      Anyway, I’m glad to see you come around to the truth.

      Even if it is after the fact.

      1. Hey man, if Robby can totally forget that he believed this story was true in his first several articles, I can totally lie about what I believed 5 hours ago because I forgot what I was saying then!

        No fair pulling this bullshit ‘actually quoting things I said’ move to make it obvious I’m a moron. You should just accept what I tell you unquestioningly without fact checking.

        1. OK then.

          Some of my ancestors were Huns, OK ?

          So now we are even.

          Let peace reign amongst our peoples forever.

        2. I didn’t forget; I presumed the story was true in my first blog post reacting to it. I’ve said as much several times. Then I went back and re-read a second and third time (upon advice from some skeptical friends), and doubt set in.

          1. I still love you Robby.

          2. You should ask Anna out on a date.

            Report back to us.

    4. This is worse than I expected. She made no mention whatsoever of the actual men she tried like hell to railroad, not to mention still refers to ‘her traumatic rape’ as opposed to (and even this would be generous) ‘her alleged rape.’

      Simply put: After all this, Erdely still, some how, some way, believes that that fraternity raped Jackie. That’s the only reason I can see why she would so conspicuously fail to mention them.

      Which is staggering. That this whole ‘rape crisis’ thing is a bona fide case of hysteria should be beyond doubt now.

      1. this was really just the apology version of invoking your 5th amendment rights and lawyering up. it looks like she (and RS) is doing whatever she can to pretend there was no reckless disregard here (of course, that doesn’t really matter as the frat wasn’t a public figure).

        the great irony in this non-apology is that i bet the frat and it’s associated members decide to show no mercy now. this will backfire. i of course could be wrong, but all comments from the aggrieved parties to this point showed empathy. yeah, they were pretty freaking upset at what happened to them, but whether out of genuine “rape culture” sympathies and/or PR concerns, they seemed willing to let dogs lie and move on.

        but now that Erdely has given such a self-serving “apology” and wasn’t the least bit contrite towards the falsely accused (seriously, you start your address to “Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues”?) if i had any claim against her my thoughts right now would be “fuck that shit – crucify her”.

        1. The fraternity should not back down until they fucking own Rolling Stone.

          They should also continue to sue until the university gives them the opportunity of taking over the building of their choice on campus.

          1. Pretty much every guy I know wants that frat to go for blood, from Jackie herself, to RS, to Erdly, and to UVA. I really wonder if Banzhof is right and they can personally go after the university president.

          2. I hope they do. From the comment someone posted from the frat, it seems like they may be genuinely pissed. Sometimes unfortunately they are so thoroughly indoctrinated by the time university fucks them in the ass they just say “well we’re white males so we probably deserved it.” This may well not apply to them, and I hope that Erdely’s non-apology (which to me seems like basically a doubling down on her accusation of them) gives them the extra motivation to go for everything they can get.

            Perhaps more importantly, I hope they get a judge who isn’t retarded.

            1. I hope they get a judge who isn’t retarded.

              When the Chief Justice of tSCotUS makes up words pulled out of his ass, why would you think that lower judges wouldn’t be also retarded?

              1. Because peak retard rises to the top?

                /just a theory

              2. The smart ones can’t get confirmed to SCOTUS. See: Janice Rogers Brown, Alex Kozinski.

            2. More likely they’d be worried about how whatever they say could affect their employment prospects, since most employers generally try to avoid controversy. It’s hard for a lot of people their age to speak their minds when everything they say can be googled.

    5. In other words, all mistakes were because Sabrina Erdely just cared too damn much and we shouldn’t let this get in the way of the RAPE CRISIS! narrative.

      And that’s exactly the same self justifying non apology issued by the perpetrators of the child molesting day car centers meme that destroyed hundreds of lives in the late 80s and early 90s.

      1. Coakley that evil cunt.

        I will never cease to remind.

  3. Basically, Rolling Stone is saying they screwed up in every journalistic way possible, but that was a one time mistake so believe the next time.

    If you believe that I have some winning lottery numbers to sell you.

    1. Also, even though they screwed up in every way imaginable, not one person was negligent enough to be worthy of firing – not even the free lancer who they wouldn’t even have to fire since they could just say ‘we will not be contracting her services in the future.’

      Yeah, they clearly care about journalistic integrity.

      1. It’s not like she did something awful like donate to Prop 8 or something.

        1. “This is the 37th time I have spoken to you from this office, where so many decisions have been made that shaped the history of this Nation. Each time I have done so to discuss with you some matter that I believe affected the national interest.

          In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. […]”

      2. But this makes them more trustworthy, you silly natters:

        Karl Moltzen
        Admit your flaws, apologize and try and do better. If FOX, and other news sources, did what Rolling Stone is doing here we would all be better informed. I am much more willing to trust an organization that doesn’t dig in and refuse to admit their mistake (even a really huge one).

        (237 likes and counting)

        1. I see Jann Wenner came up with a pseudonym.

          1. Is Little Jann the husband or the wife in his deal with Little Matt?

  4. I’ll be renting wall space for when the ballon goes up. Meanwhile Your Future Reptilian Overlords looks forward to the first feast selected amongst yourselves… But do try to avoid arson, well-done is just as detestable on our side of the galaxy as yours.

  5. And from the report:

    “Holding institutions to account. Given the difficulties, journalists are rarely in a position to prove guilt or innocence in rape. “The real value of what we do as journalists is analyzing the response of the institutions to the accusation,” Bogdanich said. This approach can also make it easier to persuade both victims and perpetrators to talk. Lombardi said the women she interviewed were willing to help because the story was about how the system worked or didn’t work. The accused, on the other hand, was often open to talking about perceived failings of the adjudication process.”

    What do you mean “prove”?

    If you mean “with enough legwork, can come up with a likely explanation of what happened,” then in many cases it *can* be proven. For instances, if a woman gives an uncorroborated story which is consistently contradicted on every point where it’s possible to check, maybe we can reach a tentative conclusion that there was no rape.

    And the “victim too traumatized to get the facts right” doesn’t apply here. It’s not like she has trouble remembering whether her rapist wore a brown or gray sweatshirt, it’s like she “misremembers” what her friends said, where people worked, and she claims to have a friend nobody else can track down.

    And if “oh, well, reporters can’t prove or disprove an alleged rape,” then how can they prove or disprove cover-up charges?

    1. The report admits that if RS had told the fraternity about the details of the alleged rape, the fraternity would have been able to point out the numerous verifiable errors.

      But the report also contains this language:

      “There are cases where reporters may choose to withhold some details of what they plan to write while seeking verification for fear that the subject might “front run” by rushing out a favorably spun version pre-emptively. There are sophisticated journalistic subjects in politics and business that sometimes burn reporters in this way. Even so, it is risky for a journalist to withhold detailed derogatory information from any subject before publication. Here, there was no apparent need to fear “front-running” by Phi Kappa Psi.”

      So it was wrong to withhold details from the fraternity, but there are some cases of “sophisticated” people and institutions who can be given a truncated version of the facts, to prevent them from blowing the reporter’s scoop?

      1. truncated version of the *alleged* facts.

      2. for fear that the subject might “front run” by rushing out a favorably spun version pre-emptively.

        We can’t have people front running false gang rape allegations, can we? There are magazines to sell!!!!

    2. “perceived failings” of the adjudication process. Because it’s all in their minds, apparently. An *alleged* victim can have the most absurd story imaginable, and somehow, the problem is still with ‘the institutions,’ but any problems the accused ‘perceives’ are the fault of the accused. Oh, what rape culture leads these men to believe that the system could ever fail in a way that could harm them? They’re privileged, after all! Clearly, the problem is that we’re not trying hard enough to convince them that they’re rapists and need to confess to crimes the evidence clearly shows they didn’t commit.

  6. Columbia Journalism School did better than I thought they would. Thought it would be a mealy mouthed “Maybe it didn’t happen as described, but..”, but instead it was a pretty savage beating.

    Doesn’t seem that Rolling Stone will end up learning a lesson from it though. Everyone there seems to be passing the blame, with absolutely no punishment involved.

    Anyways, Robby, you deserve an award for your reporting on this. You’re good people.

    1. My question – will SJW types still consider “I have a master’s from Columbia School of Journalism” to be the ultimate trump card in arguments after this? Or has Columbia’s heresy taken them off the reservation?

      1. I’m assuming it’s going to be the latter.

      2. That was the most amusing part. The author, who has really no experience or credibility, pulled the Columbia card as if that mattered…and it turns out, well, you were reckless with the truth.

        I hope that each and every member of the frat sues the living crap out of her and Rolling Stone. I’m sure they want it to go away. But we’re talking punitive damages and massive recoveries. She should be bankrupted and disgraced and have to beg for food. And RS should be put out of business. I don’t know what the value of Wenner Media is but I’d love to see whether it could take a 40 million dollar judgment or something.

        This story was such obvious b.s. from the get go and then the way they acted as if nobody should question anything about it, including the author of this Reason piece.

        1. The author, who has really no experience or credibility, pulled the Columbia card as if that mattered…and it turns out, well, you were reckless with the truth.

          The person who pulled the Columbia card actually wasn’t Erdely, it was an idiot Jezebel writer (as if there’s any other kind) named Anna Merlan in this infamous comment:

          Hi Robby! Thanks for stopping by! One small correction: I don’t think you’ve ever “reported” a goddamn thing in your life. (And because I know you’re going to do this, either here or in my Twitter mentions, which you and your friends are currently stink-clouding up with your Feelings, I have a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia and I write investigative stories. Have done for years, both at Jezebel and before I got here. Thanks for asking!)

          Instead, I think, as I made clear above, that you’re piggy-backing on the work of other people who are calling Erdely’s story into question without a single shred of evidence. You don’t get brownie points for saying *IF* the story is true *THEN* UVA should have called the cops. That’s what any decent human being would suggest.

          But by all means, do some journalism! Follow up on those leads! Let’s see it! Can’t wait!

          NEVER FORGET

          1. Didn’t she issue pretty self-abasing apology for it? I thought somebody had.

            1. She issued a ‘sincere apology’ and then said this to Robby:

              Robby Soave @robbysoave
              @annamerlan I’m just happy that his truly terrible, unbelievable thing never actually happened.

              Anna Merlan @annamerlan

              @robbysoave Sure you are.

              So she ‘apologized’ and basically insulted Robby by claiming he must love the opportunity to gloat. Her ‘apology’ was an attempt to get the heat off of her and she followed it by completely refusing to change her behavior.

              If you look at her more recent articles, it’s still pretty obvious that she takes whatever view fits her pre-existing beliefs and she refuses to look for any evidence that might contradict her beliefs.

              Here she is claiming that Republican governors are totally okay with prison rape even though the reasons they give for not complying with a federal law on the issue are pretty reasonable. Mike Pence argued states shouldn’t comply with the federal regulations because it’s possible they’ll discover better ways of dealing with problems and will be constrained by the federal statute’s requirements and Rick Perry argued that the federal regulations are unreasonably expensive. Neither of those are unreasonable, but Merlan basically argues it’s because Republican governor’s want prisoners to get raped.

              She hasn’t changed.

              1. God, she is such a fucking hack.

                OK Hates Gay Marriage So Much It Wants to Get Rid of Straight Marriage

                The Oklahoma House of Representative passed a bill Tuesday that would abolish state-issued marriage licenses. If the bill is signed into law, marriage licenses would be issued by a member of the clergy. It’s intended to block gay marriages in the state, but is actually just going to turn into an enormous, delightful, lawsuit-attracting nightmare.

                The bill, sponsored by Republican Representative and human-muppet hybrid Todd Russ, removes the words “marriage licenses” from the list of things the state’s court clerks are responsible for. Marriage licenses instead would be issued by any member of the clergy and signed by a court clerk; people who don’t want to be married by a clergy member would only be able to obtain an “affidavit of common-law marriage.”

                In other words, they want to get GOVERNMENT out of the way of marriage so anyone can get married without government interference, but Anna Merlan totally misrepresents this and insults one of the sponsors by saying he looks like a Muppet.

                Classy woman, that one.

              2. “Robby Soave @robbysoave
                @annamerlan I’m just happy that his truly terrible, unbelievable thing never actually happened.”

                But wait…. until today you totally believed it and it wasn’t an unbelieveable thing at all.

                And you’re happy now ?

                The perhaps you can quit being a man hating schrew cunt bitch.

              3. “I’m just happy that his truly terrible, unbelievable thing never actually happened.”

                Notice how she made it about ‘him’.

                What a cuntish clown.

          2. Since Jezebel is a Gawker property, I require corroboration from an unbiased source if anyone there claims that water is wet.


            1. Water isn’t wet, it’s misogynist.

              1. And if water wasn’t misogynist, how do you explain bloating?

      3. “will SJW types still consider “I have a master’s from Columbia School of Journalism” to be the ultimate trump card in arguments after this?”

        Well, it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Right? Well, isn’t it?

    2. It’s not as if they were going to let Rolling Stone off the hook. They can hardly deny the existence of a massive journalistic failure. They can (and did) include language of the Importance of the Campus Rape Issue, and minimize the anti-SJW reaction by soft-pedaling the SJW pressure against fully truthful reporting.

    3. More importantly.

      What does the Columbia graduate Merlan think about Robby now?

      1. Ed Krayewski has the same degree.

        1. Yeah but she flaunted it in Robby’s face when she attacked him way back when.

          And then POOF.


          1. Rufus would give Robby an old fashioned after 2 beers.

            1. Hey Dane. Whassup?

              1. You tell me when you’ve had the beers.

  7. So, if memory serves, didn’t UVA crack down on frats over this piece of fantasy? Chances they undo the ratchet now that it is officially BS?

    1. Less than zero.

      1. If the frats sue, they might back off. Of course, that depends on the frats not accepting a pile of tax money in lieu of the university actually cleaning up their act.


        1. Unfortunately, the average man (I assume most falsely accused more or less fit that category) has more integrity and humility than almost all SJWs, journalists, and university administrators, and so rarely sue the shit our of their malefactors; especially because they’re often genuinely afraid they’ll deter real accusations, since ironically those misogynistic men tend to care a lot more about the female half of the population than feminists do about the male half.

          And of course there’s no National Organization for Men to take the case pro bono, so a serious law suit is not as likely for that.

          1. There’s the national fraternity chapter. And a shitload of brother alum. There will be blood.

    2. Reasonable rape control measures have been initiated. No reason to undo the progress made in this regard because of one bad apple.

      1. Chastity belts? Chemical castration? Extermination policy?

        What is reasonable, man? It’s a melonfarmin’ crisis, donchano?

        1. The banning of “assault weapons” with pistol grips and high capacity magazines.

          1. Banned for everyone, or just potential rapists? I need to know what to put on my application.

            1. ALL men are potential rapists.

              1. What about trans-men?

  8. I wonder who else will be non-apologizing. Maybe this woman:

    “Inconsistencies in Jackie’s story do not mean that she wasn’t raped at UVA”


    1. Not clicking on that, assuming it’s Jessica Valenti. She’d have to actually give a shit about whether anything she wrote was true or not to issue an apology, whether real or fake.

      1. Yeah, it’s Valenti. The same twat who was crowing about Reason’s credibility back in December.


        1. In order add to my general fund of knowledge, I’d like to have a beer of two with Valenti’s husband. Just to discover what kind of man he be.

    2. And nothing proves that I wasn’t raped by Jessica Valenti last weekend. I better get Rolling Stone on the line, another rape on campus!

      1. Valenti forced me to accept a handjob because she wanted to bathe in male tears.

    3. Guardian just RE-RELEASED this article on their web stream around 11 pm EST.
      So forget the March 25 date, you can say they “doubled-down” on it.

    4. Trigger warnings for Jessica Valenti.

  9. Really, the party to blame in all this is the frat. If they would stop their white privilege raping sprees, then RS wouldn’t have to lie about the countless white privilege raping sprees……

    1. No it’s not.

      The true evil doer in all of this is the glass company that made the glass coffee table.

      Misogynistic furniture companys who made a glass coffee table that could shatter underneath a helpless woman who was raped on it for hours while not receiving so much as a scratch , much less an actual cut, should be run out of business..

      1. I beg to differ. The white genociders who founded the Jamestown colony are the ones to blame here. If they had just kept their white privilege in England where it belonged instead of massacring all those gentle native Americans to found Virginia, there would be no UVA, and all those white people wouldn’t be there in the first place. Fucking John Smith. You know he raped Pocahontas too.

  10. One of these days, I will compile Agile Cyborg’s wisodm into a gospel, and become his first disciple.

  11. So, why do Colorado tourism ads not include “BTW- Weed is legal here. Smoke up!”

    1. Because they are still team blue posers who don’t want to rub it in the emperors face.

      1. Colorado had to replace the 420 mile marker with 419.999.

        Because humans. You know.

        1. Yeah, but are they still claiming Denver is a ‘Mile high’?
          I mean with all that dope, it’s got to be a mile and a half by now~!

          1. True, they did start out pretty high already.

        2. Could be worse though.

          1. Fucking town council meeting: We move to change the name to Fucken!

            Two days later: D’oh!

          2. That? That ought to be carved into the nearest hillside and be done with it. There’s just no dealing with a sign like that.

            1. The hills are alive, with the sound of…

        3. If I were going to steal a sign, I’d much rather have that one.

  12. People still read Rolling Stone?

    1. Can you believe that they once had PJ O’Rourke *and* Hunter S. Thompson writing for them? How the mighty have fallen…

  13. I’d like to know why UVA President Sullivan still has a job.

    I’m not saying that Rolling Stone should be in the clear either, but Sullivan did allow a lynch mob to attack the fraternity, and this seems pretty inexcusable.

    Ya know, if that shit mattered to a giant University, which apparently it does not..

    1. ‘Me? What did I do? I was just protecting the integrity of something!’

    2. I’d like to know why UVA President Sullivan still has a job.

      Same reason she got it in the first place. It’s her reward for being a cutthroat apparatchik.


    3. I think she’s actually slated to get the presidential medal of freedom and once Hillary wins the election she gets to be first on the list for secretary of education.

  14. “Sabrina Rubin Erdely and the editors of Rolling Stone accepted the claims of a single source as gospel truth’

    i dont believe this is true in the slightest.

    I believe all the evidence points to everyone knowing the story was false, and doing everything they could to go through the motions of “journalism” while carefully avoiding coming across any facts that might force them to acknowledge there were any problems.

    1. So knave, not fool? Possible, but if so, did they really hope no one would see the holes in the story? It stank from day one.

    2. She knew. She lied, and thought she would get away with it, because it has happened before.

      1. She lied, and thought she would get away with it, because it has happened before.

        I really think this is starting to look like the case. Some of Erdely’s previous “reporting” is coming under scrutiny in light of this. And it doesn’t look good.

    3. It took WaPo and other reporters about a week to gather more “facts” than Erdley and rolling stone put together in *months*

      and the excuse is that they were “excessively credulous”

      of a gang rape claim.

      they fucking knew it was a classic case of “hysterical female”. they used her to pump a tale, and then blame her when it went south. they werent’ “incompetent journalists”. they were investing in a risk/return profile.

  15. RE: Andrew Harrison

    So… It’s a big deal when a black person says nigger now?

    1. Yeah saw that.

      I love how everyone is now all of a sudden appealing to be ‘calm and rational’ and that he wasn’t being racist.

      My God. Imagine if Kaminski had set it?!?

      The world would have exploded.

      1. I would have loved it if Kaminsky had said, “That nigger can call me whatever he wants.”

      2. It would have been equivalent if Kaminsky had said “Fuck that cracka” which I think would have produced far more laughs than outrage.

    2. Yeah, I mean, have you listened to a rap song in the last 10 years?

    3. Is it? What am I missing?

  16. I’m with Gilmore. They knew it was bull shit. All of them.

    The narrative was bigger than the truth.

    “These are mistakes I will not make again.”

    Well, that’s all well and good, but it’s not exactly a mistake that should have happened in the first place. You’re FUCKING TRAINED to not do EXACTLY what you did. At least you’re supposed to have been. Either journalism school failed you or you just failed to fulfill your journalistic duties.

    Or you did learn but simply chose to abdicate your professional ethic and went with your emotions.

    Or you just plain suck.

    1. Erdley did her first longform ‘rape expose’ almost 20 years ago

      (Wikipedia =“Erdely’s 1996 story for Philadelphia, in which a woman was alleged to have been raped by her gynecologist, was nominated for a National Magazine Award.””)

      Do you think for a second that a seasoned journalist with lots of experience interviewing ‘traumatized rape victims’ – particular some that were later proven to have been full of shit – wouldn’t exercise even the bare minimum degree of *verification*?… and that editors would just let it slide on 1 person’s assertion?

      They fucking knew. See my comment in the last thread and listen to Erdley ducking questions during the Slate podcast interview. She knew the answers sucked, so she refused to answer them. That’s called “demonstrating awareness of guilt”

      I don’t mind columbia helping Rolling Stone wash its hands…but please, Robby? They’re fucking liars. Erdley and her editors used a mentally deranged girl’s story for their “narrative-pumping” purposes.

      1. The girl wasn’t mentally deranged.

        She was just a “women scorned”.

        If the boy she wanted to fuck, her had been fucking her, she would never have lied about the made up guy fucking against her will.

        It’s his fault.

        1. I’m sure the dude Jacket wanted wakes up every morning and thanks his lucky stars that he didn’t stick it in that crazy. She went to all this to try and and duck him, imagine the false horrors she’d tell when they break up.

    2. “These are mistakes I will not make again.”

      Next time they’ll just make the victim and all the secondary characters up altogether, or pick names out of a phone book. That way there won’t be anyone to interview to disprove the story, and as per Valanti logic: if you can’t prove it didn’t happen, then it must’ve happened.

      1. One of the Jezzie commenters said that exact thing. Elderly’s problem was she made the story a provable lie. If she just hadn’t named the frat the story wouldn’t have fallen apart. It would still have been a lie, but it would at least not have embarrassed the “cause”.

  17. “the writers and editors were too afraid of appearing unsympathetic”

    well, I’m just glad no one else ever has that problem.

    “You can read my initial article here.”

    wasn’t the “initial” story this one? that started with….

    “”It’s difficult to imagine a more callous, wholly inadequate response to a culture of seemingly rampant sexual assault at the University of Virginia than the one its administrators practiced year after year…”

    1. Soave’s pride in being a taller-than-average midget is pretty funny. I mean, he read that entire article, wrote an article about it, and still needed to have all the bullshit pointed out to him.

    2. I like this sentence: Rolling Stone’s expose, which quickly went viral, details the unbelievable ordeal of an 18-year-old freshman, “Jackie,” in the fall of 2012.

      Key word: unbelievable.

      1. “Grab it’s motherfucking leg”

  18. That doesn’t seem like a strong enough response to an article that defamed Jackie’s friends, the fraternity, and UVA administrators/blockquoteIt’s classy of you to let bygones be, Rob, but it’s worth pointing out the hostility to which you and fellow skeptics were treated after asking a few fundamental questions about the allegations. In trying to cover up their journalistic sins they called into question your ethics.

    1. Bucking fell…

    2. Exactly, even while they knowingly lied, they were still throwing mud and shit at people who did their job.

      I don’t think they should be allowed to ‘wash’ this. It’s pretty serious stuff.

      They’re assholes.

  19. “Grab its motherfucking leg”

    1. “It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.”

  20. I want to know what that lying hack has to hold over Wenner’s head. She’s obviously a massive liability, so keeping her on is not a business decision.


    1. Keeping her is very much a business decision so long as lawsuits are pending.

      1. Yep. They’re all getting sued together.

      2. Why would this be? I ask in honesty. Would firing her constitute evidence of guilt on her part, and therefore on their part? Is it advisable therefore to just pretend like nothing wrong happened and fire no one until the law suit is over?

        I assume though that, if there is a law suit, either way they will dump Erdely once it’s over, as she will still be a liability (only a matter of time until she screws up again).

        1. There are a number of potential reasons, but it does boil down to the principle of united we stand, divided we fall.

          While it would not be evidence of guilt, firing Erdely is a bad visual for both, and risks alienating her from either the shame of public dismissal, or the loss of revenue.

          Also, once separated communications become more problematic, especially as they both will then have independent counsel.

          Buy yes, once the checks have cleared, and the media has ‘moved on’ RS and Erdely will quietly ‘part ways’ no doubt ‘due to the stress and strain of a difficult environment created by unforeseen circumstance.’

          At which point Erdely will go to work for The Atlantic, Politico, or some such.

          1. They’ll have independent counsel in any case. Erdely is a freelancer, not an employee of RS. Technically they can’t dismiss her; they can simply refuse to contract with her for further stories.

        2. You would not want to fire that hack while lawsuits were potentially pending. End of.

          Same principle as to why many public “apologies” are so mealy-mouthed and Clintonian in nature.

          You really wouldn’t EVER want to fire that hack while any potential statute of limitation was in play. What will happen is that she will end up moving on – supposedly of her own accord.

  21. I’m dishing out some ice cream….anyone care for some chocolate or vanilla? DONT TOUCH MY RED ICE CREAM!!!!!!…..I mean please…. sorry…………Damnit! Grrrrr!

    No wait!! I’m not growling at you. Ugh, it’s rough keeping guests sometimes.

  22. Erdely told Columbia that in retrospect, “I wish somebody had pushed me harder” about reaching out to the three friends.

    But her editor, Woods, told Columbia that he did push: “I did repeatedly ask, ‘Can we reach these people? Can we?’ And I was told no.”

    Wow, that’s 2 (TWO!) pieces of shit.

    You’re a reporter. ‘pushing harder’ for the truth is the whole definition of the profession. You are full of crap.

    As for the editor, Woods, if your reporter says she can’t get in touch with three college students whose names are known as well as their associates and the places they frequent and they aren’t fugitives, your reporter is incompetent and should be fired just for that.

  23. There is no doubt that Jackie has said things that are false. However, to say that she is a liar and in particular a rational and calculated one, is perhaps a reasonable possibility but not an entirely compelling one either. For two reasons:

    1. She might simply be mentally ill, for example schizophrenic. As one case, some people tell very clear and consistent accounts about alien abductions; they aren’t lying in the sense of uttering falsehoods intentionally, because they actually have those memories, even though they never happened. Schizophrenia can be a devastating and confusing illness, often controllable by drugs, but given Jackie’s age it might also be the first appearance of the illness; she might not have been diagnosed yet.

    2. Of course, schizophrenia is speculation. But it seems more likely than her being a rational and calculated liar, because IT ISN’T RATIONAL to tell such a fabrication to Rolling Stone where it will be published and make national headlines. Even if RS is nice and caring and stops investigating everywhere she asks them to (discarding their journalistic integrity along the way), every other media outlet will be able to check the story. It’s guaranteed that such a falsehood would be found out, and it was found out quickly.

    1. Are schizophrenics known for sophisticated catfishing schemes?

      1. Pretty much anything is possible with a schizophrenic. They can have a part of them that knows the memories are false (and acts seemingly rational at times), or not have such a part. They can have constant hallucinations and voices in their head, or only at certain times.

        Nothing in this story rules out schizophrenia, because it is almost impossible to rule out with the little data we have. Only a psychiatrist that meets her could make a diagnosis.

        The bottom line, though, is that if you think she is a rational catfisher, you must explain why she told her story to RS where once it goes public, it would be found to be false.

        1. Well, that’s something Sabrina could have learned and reported had she, you know, did her FUCKING JOB.

          1. Rufus J. Firefly|4.5.15 @ 11:08PM|#
            “Well, that’s something Sabrina could have learned and reported had she, you know, did her FUCKING JOB.”

            Or at least written it as less than fact. Like maybe suggesting one person told her this and she didn’t bother to find out whether it had any possibility of being true.

            1. That too.

        2. hey can have constant hallucinations and voices in their head, or only at certain times.

          I said “sophisticated catfishing scheme,” not “acted like a Japanese school girl in a chatroom.” (RIP Suki)

          you must explain why she told her story to RS

          Well if I must … she thought her story would just be an anecdote in a long story about campus rape. When told that she would be the feature she asked Erdely to not report it, and Eredly refused.

          1. Good point, she might have hoped to not be too noticeable I suppose. She was the major part of the story from early on but it isn’t clear that she knew it, so you might well be right.

            (The hallucinations was just an example of the large variation in schizophrenic symptoms, I didn’t mean to imply you said or didn’t say anything regarding it.)

            1. There’s no “might.” This was reported by The Post.

              1. Oh, before this report from today? Got a link to that?

                1. http://www.breitbart.com/video…..ing-stone/

                  There’s more at The Post, but T Rees Shapiro has so many articles about this that it’s hard to find with a quick google.

                  1. Ok, thanks.

                    1. Maybe Jackie was lying to The Post. From the RS report

                      In December, Jackie told The Washington Post in an interview that after several interviews with Erdely, she had asked to be removed from the story, but that Erdely had refused. Jackie told the Post she later agreed to participate on condition that she be allowed to fact-check parts of her story. Erdely said in an interview for this report that she was completely surprised by Jackie’s statements to the Post and that Jackie never told her she wanted to withdraw from the story. There is no evidence of such an exchange between Jackie and Erdely in the materials Erdely submitted to Rolling Stone.

                2. The girl had issues, but pretty clearly was not schizophrenic.

                  She thought she was telling a little lie, and had no idea that it would be under so much scrutiny.

                  1. Correct. The average lay person might think of schizophrenia along the lines of symptoms such as hallucinations or delusions, but the most pathognomonic feature of most cases of schizophrenia is disorganization, which is far harder to treat than the hallucinations. The disorganization makes it quite difficult for most sufferers of schizophrenia to do unfamiliar complicated tasks, especially with any continuity. Jackie’s story seemed plotted and planned — note her ability to even calculate when she could resist questions from Erdely until she gave up.

                    Would this have been true and florid schizophrenia, the story would have likely had changed continually from day one, getting ever more off the track, with changing details which might have gotten even more absurd.

                    Instead, you saw someone caught in a lie and had to tell even more ‘believable’ lies to cover it as the story grew, which you just would not have seen done in any credible fashion in schizophrenia. More likely this fits a Personality Disorder, which from most evidence is not a biologic illness like schizophrenia, but characterological. From my perch a million miles away, if I were to hazard a guess, Jackie’s situation would be more along the lines of Borderline Personality Disorder.

                    1. Paranoid schizophrenics can be fairly organized, but I do agree that BPD sounds like a better fit. As with the other Cluster B PDs, people with BPD are often exceptionally gifted at faking sincerity.

          2. I think Jackie basically has Munchhausen’s syndrome. People with that mental illness, as opposed to schizophrenia, are fairly rational; they know the’ye full of shit and actively try to conceal it because it’s the attention their after. Jackie doesn’t appear to believe herself, hence why she was so dodgy whenever Erdely asked a question the answer to which would have exposed the falsity of the story.

            1. Why do we feel the constant need to medicalize unethical or immoral behavior?

              1. Yea, she seems like a garden-variety fabulist. If she was a dude, he’d have a hot girlfriend in Canada.

                1. Jewish girlfriend from Canada.

              2. Michael Hihn. Bo.
                Does that answer the question?

              3. Because she caught that horrible syndrome from a toilet seat in a public restroom. It’s not her fault!!!

              4. Why do we feel the constant need to medicalize unethical or immoral behavior?

                Because we’re holding out for a cure?

              5. It’s the fad these days and I like to be fashionable. I just think of Munchhausen’s as being more or less a synonym for acute attention-whoring in any case.

        3. you must explain why she told her story to RS where once it goes public, it would be found to be false.

          Really, I must explain it? Since your’re throwing the gauntlet down, here’s a simple explanation: she didn’t think it would be found out. She was telling the story to a so-called reporter from a supposedly respected national magazine and they were eating it up with little to no doubt, so why would Jackie think things would be any different after publication?

          By the way something, most humans are emotional rather than rational, and non-rational is long fucking way from schizophrenic. It sounds like someone feels the need to give Jackie an out. “She’s not bad, she’s just sick.”

          1. I don’t “want” to give her an out. I’m just raising the possibility. She might be sick, or she might be evil. Her being sick is an option we should consider, and not jump to calling her evil.

            It’s possible you are right, and she was naive and assumed all the rest of the press would be idiots like RS. However, the preparation for the story played out over months – I just find it hard to believe an actual rational actor wouldn’t think about all the many many people who would read it, some with an open mind, some that are proper investigative journalists.

            1. Her being sick is an option we should consider, and not jump to calling her evil.

              They’re not mutually exclusive.

            2. As I pointed out, humans are not rational. We, at best, weigh the potential risk versus the potential reward, and decide what we can handle (an emotional decision). Jackie decided the risk was worth it, and, if we were to be rational, what were the real risks? What terrible consequences have befallen a woman making false rape accusations in the past? Pretty much nothing.

              Her being sick is an option we should consider, and not jump to calling her evil.

              So you do want to give her an out, because here you are with your Trapper John Long Distance Diagnosis of the mental health of someone you’ve never met, and offering up an exculpatory scenario to deflect rightly directed blame.

              I’m not even calling her evil, just a lying criminal asshole.

      2. Are schizophrenics known for sophisticated catfishing schemes?


    2. I dunno. If not for a few people who raised questions, the story largely seem accepted, rather gleefully I might add, by most of the media.

      It’s the perfect example of the “fake but accurate” story that the media loves to push its agenda.

      1. According to this report, Erdely was just a step away from discovering the truth more than once, but held back or was asked to hold back by Jackie. But Jackie would know that at least *some* people would actually look into it with even basic diligence, which would be enough to uncover the lies.

        Any rational person in Jackie’s shoes would see that the lies couldn’t hold up.

        1. Any rational person in Jackie’s shoes would see that the lies couldn’t hold up.

          That’s not at all clear to me. The story was out for about a week before anyone started challenging. it. And those who did took a hell of a lot of flack for doing so. It doesn’t seem at all unreasonable that that a college student like Jackie, living in the academic cocoon that enshrines the status of victims, could have expected the story to not get that much scrutiny.

          1. It took a while for the skeptics to go public because skeptics understood going public would make them targets with possible career limiting impact even if proven correct.

    3. Wow.

      Not only a troll but a professional one at that.

      Who is your paymaster. Seriously.

      It may be something as OK as the National Awareness Society To Help Schizophernics or it could be the law firm hired by Rolling Stone.

      None the less I give you props for professionalism.

      1. I guess I’m feeling charitable but I don’t think this person has followed the crucial stories in the Post and the Daily Caller and so only knows the boring whitewashed NYT version.

        1. Yeah, sorry if I am wrong about this. I wasn’t aware about her being misled by Erdely until you pointed it out, I missed the articles about that specific aspect of this from a few months back – it’s not mentioned in the report published today.

          1. Here’s a couple fun places to start catching up.


      2. ?

    4. Actually, there are two things wrong with that analysis. First, acting irrationally doesn’t mean you’re mentally ill; people act irrationally all the time, it’s part of the human condition. Second, most people with mental illness are still culpable; culpability depends on whether you understand your conduct was wrong, not whether your reasoning behind the conduct was coherent.

      1. Also, if she is mentally ill then Erdely and RS exploited that in the interest of hyping sales and pushing their narrative, making their actions even worse.

  24. Sabrina lied. People died had their lives ruined.

    1. Meh. With a good lawyer those guys should come out of this owning Rolling Stone. Maybe they can turn it around?

      1. Sure sure. They didn’t have it nearly as bad as the Duke lacrosse boys.

        I’m making an early call here: Rolling Stone will settle very early on, and for a lot of money.

        They won’t survive the discovery process, and they know it.

        1. The fuckers (including that ratfuck opportunist Jesse Jackson) ruined the Duke lacrosse team. The coach ended up in a much smaller school nowhere near Duke’s lacrosse program.

          Shame all around. Pure shame.

          1. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should by right have less credibility than David Duke by know. Sharpton has literally gotten people killed and belongs in prison. In a sane world, any news outlet that gave him a podium as an authority on race (or gave Valenti or her ilk a podium on gender issues) would get shit-canned as fast as a documentary about the holocaust that used David Irving as a source.

            1. But the problem is BOOOOOOOOOSH!
              So Sharpton gets a pass.

  25. Erdely believed firmly that Jackie’s account was reliable. So did her editors and the story’s fact-checker, who spent more than four hours on the telephone with Jackie, reviewing every detail of her experience. “She wasn’t just answering, ‘Yes, yes, yes,’ she was correcting me,” the checker said. “She was describing the scene for me in a very vivid way. ? I did not have doubt.” (Rolling Stone requested that the checker not be named because she did not have decision-making authority.)

    I had this weird notion that fact checkers did something more than just re-interview sources and decide whether they’re credible based on vividness.

      1. According to the link, an official defended himself to the Emperor: “Now, O noble Emperor, you’re going to hear all sorts of reports about how I [air quotes] ‘stole’ from the ‘Treasury,’ and how I took ‘bribes,’ but that’s all lies from my enemies. No matter how many reports you get, it’s totally implausible – who you gonna believe, some disgruntled [air quotes] ‘witnesses’ or your own minister?”

    1. How does one “correct” a blatant falsehood, other than admitting to lying?

  26. For example, the friends said that Jackie told them that her date on Sept. 28 was not a lifeguard but a student in her chemistry class named Haven Monahan. (The Charlottesville police said in March they could not identify a UVA student or any other person named Haven Monahan.)

    Why the fuck does everybody refuse to state plainly that Jacky catfished “Haven Monahan” into existence with schmaltzy Dawson’s Creek lines in order to make Ryan jealous. It’s 1) hilarious and 2) crucial to understanding what actually happe …. oh, nevermind.

    1. Yeah, I especially like Valenti’s claim that these ‘inconsistencies’ don’t indicate that Jackie wasn’t raped. You mean, like, the fact the mastermind behind the rape ***does not exist*** doesn’t suggest that she wasn’t raped? Do we count it as rape if she was raped by her imaginary friend?

      1. Do we count it as rape if she was raped by her imaginary friend?

        According to Star Trek: The Next Generation, yes.

        1. The Virgin Mary agrees.

        2. Or if you live in a Haruki Murakami novel

  27. Yup. I am reading Reason, not The Onion.

  28. I fondly remember my years at Rape College.

    1. So you’re an alumnus, eh? I go there now. It’s gone way downhill though: too much consent.

    2. That’s where they teach you not to rape.

      1. Oh. Oops. I seem to have misunderstood some of the lectures.

    3. Ahh, man, I didn’t have the SATs for it.

      I had to go to my shitty reserve school, Rape State.

      Nowhere near as rapey as the brochures implied, definitely not up to Rape College standards.

  29. A male reporter could not have done this story the way Erdely did. Erdely badgered ‘Jackie’ whose real name is STILL withheld by the media after all this time.

    It’s right there in the apology. Erdely apparently said she would go ahead with the story even if ‘Jackie’ backed out. Erdely is the one who would keep calling after weeks of being ignored. Erdely was on a fucking crusade from the start.

    I don’t for a second think she was incompetent. I believe all of this was completely intentional and the result of arrogance. The sort that can only be bred when you live in an insular environment where everyone reaffirms your beliefs no matter how ridiculous like that which you find in the media and academia.

    1. It does make it kind of sound like “Jackie” was a kind of flighty nutcase that would have just gone away quickly had she been ignired, but Erdely created the story by feeding it big-time journalistic interest.

      1. “Erdely created the story…”

        Not quite. Jackie was telling this story to her “rape victims club” at UVA for more than a year before Erdely came calling.

        1. I understand. I didn’t mean literally “create the story”, I mean journalistically turned it into a story.

          1. I think Jackie was a typical campus nutcase, Erdely had an agenda, and Renda, who bailed on this as soon as the tide turned, is the one who really put it together, and probably coached Jackie.

            Renda, of course, worked/interned for the Obama administration and was likely looking to make a career for herself bravely fighting the scourge of campus rape.

            1. Renda, that’s the woman. This is what I get for reading comments in reverse order.

        2. Not “this story”; the story she initially told was the same (and completely different) one she told to her friends. Erdely and the editors simply assumed it was the same story and therefore falsely concluded that Phi Psi and UVA officials were dissembling when in fact they didn’t know anything about the particular story Jackie was telling Erdely.

          Of course if Erdely had done the real basic journalistic work of interviewing the friends, none of this would have happened.

  30. (The article’s mention of two other rapes at Phi Kappa Psi were also exposed as mere conjecture from a single, highly unreliable source? you guessed it: Jackie.)

    What I want to know is, when does Jackie begin working for the upcoming Clinton Administration’s Health and Human Services Department?

    1. I believe one of Jackie Coakley’s enablers at the university, a small woman whose name I’ve forgotten with another of rape story that somehow didn’t involve going to the police, has done work for the Obama administration.

      1. You’re thinking of Emily Renda, whose role in this affair hasn’t been adequately investigated (though to be fair, it was outside the scope of the Columbia investigation).

    1. He’s not really a witness, is he?

    2. OMG. People defending themselves !!! Total Anarchy !!!!

  31. Is it just relative noob me or does the Reason comment system make some of these conversations harder to follow than a Mexican soap opera?

    1. And without the impossibly hot actresses.

      1. Seriously. Mexican soap opera women are simply unreal.

  32. Robby Soave, Richard Bradley, well done, well bloody done.

    1. Richard Bradley wrote the first post questioning the story. (Commenters don’t count because what do people with real jobs know about the real world?) The Post, notably T. Rees Shapiro, did most of the shoe-leather reporting. Other than getting in a silly spat with Jezebel, what the fuck did Soave do?

      1. I’d give him a lot of credit for taking on that nest of scum and villainy.

        I mean, seriously, I wouldn’t take on Jezebel. Would you?

  33. “Jackie Lied. End of story?”

    Hopefully not yet. UVA has this quaint little thing they call an Honor Code:

    “The University of Virginia’s Honor Code is at once an injunction and an aspiration. The injunction is simple: students pledge never to lie, cheat, or steal, and accept that the consequence for breaking this pledge is permanent dismissal from the University. It is for its aspirational quality, however, that the Honor Code is so cherished: in leading lives of honor, students have continuously renewed that unique spirit of compassion and interconnectedness that has come to be called the Community of Trust.”

    1. Being too lazy to change my screenname finally bit me in the ass.

    2. I think they meant all that ironically.

    3. Nice to hear from you Haven.

      Yup. In a rational world, Jackie damn well oughta have an honor trial in her future, Erdley should never write again, and someone will sue RS out of existence. But rational jumped the shark quite some time back.

  34. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.You will have business coming to you on a daily basis.Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance

    open this site.. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  35. Hilariously, when SVU did their rip of this headline, they still managed to equivocate by making there actually be a rapist (just not a gang rape) instead of total falsehood, and a negligent university instead of a hyper zealous one.

    1. Typical SVU. They’ve done that multiple times. They had one false accusation but where the falsely accused forcibly aborted the woman’s fetus so he was still evil; I don’t know if they’ve ever had an actual show where it just turned out to be a plain false accusation.

  36. “The article has been fully retracted, and no longer appears on Rolling Stone’s website.”

    Memory hole disposal successful.

    Hope someone printed it out on rough-grade sandpaper to smack Rolling Stone with whenever they get aspirations to journalism.

  37. The Rolling Stone article is the result of the media bias feminists have produced. Even many of the rape studies are modified for political objectives influenced by the powerful feminist lobby. And insufficient evidence cases are counted as “truthful” accusations in many of the studies. Thus we get the false and manufactured “98% of alleged victims tell the truth” claim.

    Large numbers of people have been falsely accused of rape: Some examples are Singer-songwriter Conor Oberst, NFL’s Brian Banks, William McCaffey, James Grissom, and false-rape allegations at Ohio University and Hofstra University. Crystal Mangum, represented by Gloria Allred, made false allegations of rape against Duke University lacrosse players.

    Some men spend years in prison before they are exonerated, and many have their reputations and lives destroyed.

    Source: “False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem.” By Cathy Young. Slate, September 2014.

    “Oftentimes, whenever police or prosecutors speak the truth about the rate of false rape accusations, Feminist and related interest groups demand that they undergo ‘sensitivity training.’ What this really means is that they must be intimidated, browbeaten, threatened, and coerced into apologizing for stating an inconvenient truth.”

    Source: “10 Reasons False Rape Accusations are Common.” By Jonathan Taylor. A Voice for Male Students, July 22, 2014.

    1. I believe you meant to write, “convicted murderer Crystal Mangum”.

    2. Progressives would lose one of their most used tools should media bias ever stop.

  38. “Richard Bradley and I were the first two journalists to write articles expressing skepticism of Erdely’s reporting.”

    Did I miss an article By Soave, or is Farhi (at the Washington Post) not a “journalist”? The timeline of published skepticism:

    Richard Bradley’s stong, initial skepticism, 11/24/14
    Soave article that criticized process that did not involve police, 12/25/14
    Farhi’s Washington Post piece on Erdely and the “alleged” rape, 11/28/14
    Soave’s first article on “hoax,” 12/1/14

    1. *strong

      * 11/25 NOT 12/25

      (hey, I’M no journalist!)

      1. Have you noticed there’s not an edit button? Instead there’s a preview button.

        Maybe Reason is training us to be their next crop of proof readers. “Get it right before it goes to print.”

  39. This was an interesting story… about four dead horses ago.

    1. Keep seeing the breaking news about this not so new story.

  40. Erdely’s apology is not an apology at all, just a whine that her story was ‘false, but accurate’, to paraphrase another disgraced journalist.

    1. -1 Dan Rather

  41. The peddlers of the “rape culture” narrative are just going to lay low for a little while (especially as the proggie wigout over the Gay Holocaust of gays supposedly not able to get pizza for their weddings is absorbing a lot of attention–the silly fuckers absolutely refuse to let go of it) and then pull the same shit again. They might cover their tracks a little better, although there really is no need: the narrative is embedded now.

  42. Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me now. I freelance over the internet and earn about 75 bucks an hour. Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. A little effort and handsome earning dream is just a click away?.
    ———— http://www.work-reviews.com

  43. She should get a job at foxnews.

    1. That will be difficult because they will almost certainly be outbid by the “Al Sharpton Network” (MSNBC).

  44. Of course no one will be fired. Their victims were a fraternity, probably all of them white (they certainly are in the imaginations of liberals), and they meant well in exposing the rape culture that every liberal knows is pervasive among male collegians even though every accusation they come up with proves to be a fabrication. And the only people whose opinions they care about all think just like them.

  45. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………………


  46. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  47. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.