Campus Rape Story Was 'Bulletproof' Except for the Hoax, Says Rolling Stone Founder Jann Wenner
With journalistic standards like these...

Jann Wenner—founder of the music and pop culture magazine Rolling Stone—is still defending an infamously inaccurate article that appeared in his publication nearly a decade ago.
"The University of Virginia story was not a failure of intent, or an attempt to be loose with the facts," Wenner told The New York Times last week. "You get beyond the factual errors that sank that story, and it was really about the issue of rape and how it affects women on campus, their lack of rights. Other than this one key fact that the rape described actually was a fabrication of this woman, the rest of the story was bulletproof." (Emphasis mine.)
"A Rape on Campus" was published on November 19, 2014. Its author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, claimed that a University of Virginia student named "Jackie" had been viciously raped by a group of male students at a fraternity party as some kind of initiation ritual. Jackie's account was intended as a representative story—an example of the kind of routine sexual violence faced by young women on college campuses.
But the underlying crime never took place. Days after the story's initial publication, it came under attack from journalists who were skeptical of the details. I came to suspect the whole thing might be an elaborate hoax, mostly because I had a hard time believing the perpetrators could have possibly expected to get away with it. Most campus sexual assaults involve incapacitation with drugs and alcohol; the idea that not one, but multiple assailants—including a man whose identity was known by the victim—would attack a fully conscious woman without any fear she would go to the police seemed fanciful.
It eventually emerged that Jackie had made the whole thing up. The person she accused did not exist, though she had impersonated him in texts to her friends. Had Rolling Stone followed standard journalistic protocols, Jackie's fraud would have been exposed prior to publication, but fact-checkers at the magazine never pressed Erdely to contact either Jackie's friends or the alleged perpetrator. Rolling Stone ultimately settled three defamation lawsuits, brought by the fraternity in question, several of its members, and a dean wrongly portrayed as unsympathetic.
So when Wenner says that "the rest of the story was bulletproof," he's essentially saying, Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
This was not the only eyebrow-raising line in the Times interview. Wenner also admitted to allowing the famous subjects of his own interviews—including John Lennon, Bono, and others—to edit articles about them before publication:
[Lennon] went through, and he made changes here and there. Basically, it's interview subjects clarifying what they want to say, making it more precise. Because it's a long stream of yap and verbiage and you sometimes don't think through every word. I want them to have the opportunity to say precisely what they meant.
With journalistic standards like these, it's easier to see how Rolling Stone's rape story came into being in the first place.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
https://apnews.com/article/jann-wenner-rolling-stone-rock-hall-4052a04c35ce13cc2b17b5455ebe6883
He was full of controversy this weekend apparently.
He's certainly full of something.
It’s worth reading the AP link to see Wenner explain how Curtis Mayfield and Joni Mitchell weren’t the intellectuals that Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, and Bruce Springsteen were.
What an asshole, looks like he’s running out of work options. Maybe Kurt Loder can hook him up with a gig at Reason as a “contributing editor”.
Wenner is the lefts American success story : how to turn free love into annual subscriptions of hate.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving swell guy. 'I'd like to thank the Academy - but they won't let me in anymore either.'
“You get beyond the factual errors that sank that story, and it was really about the issue of rape and how it affects women on campus, their lack of rights. ”
This is some maximum level “truth over facts” cope.
Similar to Minaj's "social truth" justification for completely making up race hoaxes to disguise what a loser piece of shit he really is.
Emotional Truth*
Sam Harris’ “if COVID were as bad as we claimed I would have been right.” Logic comes to mind as well.
Wenner is the lefts American success story : how to turn free love into annual subscriptions of hate.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving swell guy. 'I'd like to thank the Academy - but they won't let me in anymore either.'
Dont forget his: 'truth is absolutely important and knowing it is paramount, unless Trump is involved then fuck truth, remove him by any means necessary' - mask moment
and some activist commentators calling Smollet's performance "low-key noble" because he was highlighting a problem that black people face
All of these examples listed are malignant symptoms of the disease that is victim studies in academia, and "my truth" over reality
This is some maximum level “truth over facts” cope.
Something something... "my truth"... mumble mumble...
Yes, the main structural support of the building was not made from load bearing material, but the rest of the building was beautiful until it collapsed!
Wenner apparently has learned nothing from his experience with this story.
Also, it's a shame that people felt defamed by the obvious lies that should have been obvious, but let's not forget the riots, and the vandalism, and the shutting down of the school, and banning of organizations that were not guilty of anything in the tale. Everyone completely overreacted to this.
Did 'Jackie' ever face any consequences? They should have been at least as severe as the ones her imaginary guy would have been facing, had he existed.
No matter how much you despise the journalist class, it's not even close to what they merit.
As a masochist might say: yeah and they're vindictive bastages too.
Mr. Soave is apparently too classy to link to Jezebel's Anna Merlan embarrassing herself in defense of Jackie's lies.
So I'll do it instead. 🙂
"But Robby Soave at the libertarian magazine Reason thinks we’re talking about the wrong questions entirely. Shouldn’t we be asking, he wonders, if Jackie just, like, made the whole story up?"
LOL
More aged-like-milk feminist snark!
"But never mind Erdely’s months of work. Two guys who have no idea what they’re talking about don’t believe it. Case closed."
I control-F'd the article for "mansplaining" and surprisingly came up empty. Was that term in wide use by 2014?
Hahahahaha she can't even make a correction without flinging more bitchy insults!
"Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said Richard Bradley is retired. In fact, he is the current editor-in-chief of Worth. I regret the error. This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like, in the unlikely event that any editors at Worth or writers at Reason ever need to issue one."
#Feminism101
That 'Correction' is a mind-boggling work of art.
This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like, in the unlikely event that any editors at Worth or writers at Reason ever need to issue one.
This isn't saying what I think she thinks it's saying. If she's saying they are unlikely to need to issue a correction, she's saying their coverage is reliable and accurate.
bingo
In summary, what we have here are two dudes who have some vague suspicions and, on that basis, are implying that Ederley either fabricated her story or failed to do her due diligence and didn’t fact check what Jackie told her. Never mind that she gave a long interview to the Washington Post this weekend about the weeks she spent fact-checking the story.
You publish a story and then you do your due diligence supporting it by hitting the talk show circuit, that's how you jurinalism.
Even her retraction article was unrepentant ironic gold:
"This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave's doubts about the story and called them "idiots" for picking apart Jackie's account, I was dead fucking wrong"
Ah, yeah, that's what made it bad. Because it made you wrong.
Again, typical suburban boxed wine swilling cat lady: everything is all about her.
Typical suburban boxed wine swilling cat lady. Even when admitting she was wrong she just can't help but be a snarky, unprofessional little bitch about it.
You must not be familiar with jezebel. I think that's an editorial requirement if you work there.
Yeah, in the good old days before Gawker really got overtaken by its SJW cohort, the commenters at Deadspin and the ones at Jezebel absolutely DESPISED each other for that very reason. Watching the 4-chan-wannabe Deadspin commenters slag on Jezebel was pretty hilarious. This was circa 2006-2007.
I think that’s an editorial requirement if you work there.
I’m sure it is. I’ve heard of them before and seen some of their work before. However, as a rule of thumb I generally try to avoid reading obvious horseshit written by middle aged Karens who think it’s still “cool” to write in the vernacular of a catty teenager.
You oughtta read the comments. Robby's in there:
The funny sub-subtext: Robby reads Jezebel and wades into the comments.
And looks like Msssszzz Anna checks out of the comments around December 5th of that year, after the RS retraction.
Yeah, things get spicu in the comments ~December 5th with all the 'you're just a poopy mansplaining rapey white man' disappearing altogether.
Here's one from the Libertarianism Plus wing on December 3rd:
Looks like Reason did grow up and start attacking the Mises Caucus and stuff.
Libertarian feminists, you say?
Ouch for Presley, may she RIP.
Funnier still, there is no report to the police so either they aren't decent human beings (Jackie and UVA admin) or the story was always false but Anna thought this was a good point for her team.
RS infamously panned Led Zeppelin's first four studio albums. Jann Wenner can suck Satan's cock in hell.
And famously dismissed punk in favor of Led Zeppelin wannabe's a few years later. Even on rock music, its ostensible core area of expertise, Rolling Stone passed its sell-by date decades ago.
RS has always chased the trend, they've never influenced it. After the 60s especially, musical fashions were typically driven by underground tastes that eventually found their way into the mainstream thanks to renegade DJs and MTV giving them more exposure.
A big reason the music industry these days is so fucking hollow is because there's really no garden for upcoming musical trends to grow, where the talented and/or savvy performers rise to the top and drive the trend, while the rest languish in relative obscurity. That's why Taylor Swift and Beyonce continue to sell millions of albums WAAAAY past their sell-by date as creative artists, and why K-pop became so popular .
There's a reason people hate Wenner on sight; it saves them time.
The truth is out there. Just not at The Rolling Stone.
I don't think it is analogous, because the play, at least part of it, happened.
"You get beyond the factual errors that sank that story, and it was really about the issue of rape and how it affects women on campus, their lack of rights.
In reality the fabrication was their only evidence the assertion was true. When the left asserts the story is still true they are admitting that evidence is irrelevant to their conclusions.
This is why the left engages in mythology building. It supports the conclusion without that pesky need for facts. The mythology convinces people things are true without having to understand the facts as we saw in The 1619 Project. I wrote this story was impossible the first day I read it, but left wingers don’t care about reality. Literally none of those who commented ever changed their statements, they just pretended their conclusions were supported by other evidence. That’s because the goal is to justify hiring mass numbers of left wing activists and stick the bill to taxpayers and non-left students through Title IX.
Yeah, the whole story was clearly bullshit from the opening paragraph. It read like a rejected SVU script.
Interestingly enough, I thought there was a totally not based on a real story (wink, wink, nudge nudge) about a fake, made up campus rape story in an episode of SVU that, like the RS story, fell apart once it came out that the "victim" made the whole thing up. Apparently the main takeaway from the the SVU episode was that the fake rape story put "believe all women" behind several decades, and that was the main problem with it. Not that some broad made up a ridiculous story and some asshole "journalists" bought it to push a narrative, or that real falsely accused men had their reputations and lives ruined, but that "#BelieveAllWomyn" might be pushed back. I shit you not.
No, I remember that as well. I don't take hate hoaxes seriously anymore for that very reason--after the umpteenth time of them turning out to be fake because the narcissistic ethno/gender-marxist turd "just wanted to start a conversation," I just assume it's fake right from the start until direct evidence showing the perpetrator in action is shown.
Same thing with this Russell Brand controversy that just exploded--yeah, I'm not shocked that a longtime drug addict and fame whore had women who were looking for him to grab them by the pussy when he made a name for himself, and the chances are pretty decent that he did some shady shit in that time. But I don't find it to be a coincidence at all that this all came out suddenly after Brand had remade his brand as an anti-establishment critic during a time when the left controls the establishment. If this were still the Bush years and he was criticizing the right like he did back then, none of this would have seen the light of day.
When you seek delusional utopia, and fight equally delusional imagined enemies, only fiction can supply the proper narrative.
You get beyond the factual errors that sank that story
"Sure, there's not ACTUALLY a wolf eating my sheep, and technically, none of my sheep have ever been eaten by a wolf and technically I've never even seen a wolf, BUT there are totes sheep in lots of other flocks getting eaten all the time and what we really need to do is focus on that."
Rolling Stone did some crappy journalism but allowing subjects to offer corrections to articles about themselves is not an example of crappy journalism. Yes, on the one hand, you risk the subjects injecting self-serving comments into the article. On the other hand, you get to actually check the validity of your own recollection and understanding from the only other person who was there.
I have stopped accepting requests for interviews because journalists so frequently either mis-quoted or completely misunderstood what I actually said. I don't believe that in my own cases they were doing so out of malice or bias - I think they just didn't have the background knowledge to understand the topic and in their ignorance made assumptions that were untrue.
Note also that 'check your facts' has been a journalistic rule since the start of journalism while 'don't allow pre-reads or corrections' is a much more recent "rule" dating to the decline of journalistic objectivity as a value to be pursued.
I don’t believe that in my own cases they were doing so out of malice or bias – I think they just didn’t have the background knowledge to understand the topic and in their ignorance made assumptions that were untrue.
You're being way too generous here. Journalism schools openly promote themselves as seminaries for left-wing evangelicalism these days, using all the Current Year shibboleths to signal that intent.
...allowing subjects to offer corrections to articles about themselves is not an example of crappy journalism.
It's straight up journalistic malpractice.
What you may be thinking of are public relations releases because that's what we could call that. Allowing the person or entity you're writing about to edit the story themselves then printing that version is, in fact, a lie perpetrated on their readership.
The only reason any publication does that kind of thing is to give a thin veneer of impartiality to what is in effect a public relations release designed to drum up business or suppress negative press.
Which, if everyone is being honest, is what Rolling Stone is and likely always has been. Hence their 'in the gutter' level of journalistic standards: they don't have any because they never needed them for their actual purpose.
Only lately have they pretended to be journalists, and it's clear they don't know how that actually works since they have been paid shills for so long.
Have they even had any kind of journalists since Taibbi was on their payroll?
Bullshit.Strawman. That’s not the practice I was describing.Checking your quotes and conclusions with your source was routine practice for decades. (Note: I’m talking long before the growth of “press release journalism”.) You didn’t have to agree with the source or accept the corrections and you could print whatever you wanted. But if you expected to maintain any credibility on a technical topic, you damned sure checked that you understood the topic properly before pretending to present it to the people. So, for example, if you’re trying to explain relativity, you not only interviewed the professor but you would run a draft past to make sure that you properly understood what you learned during the interview.
Only since the death of “journalistic objectivity” has fact-checking with your original source been considered “journalistic malpractice”. It may be an appropriate rule for politicians (who have an incentive to bias the story) but applying it blindly is why fewer and fewer people with actual knowledge are willing to be sources on complex issues. Journalism professors seem blind to the fact that this rule that they think is necessary because of self-interested sources is a self-fulfilling prophecy – it drives off the sources who actually care about truth and leaves only the self-interested to talk at all.
"The University of Virginia story was not a failure of intent, or an attempt to be loose with the facts,"
Nice use of the passive voice there. Because they clearly intended to push a bullshit hoax story, and didn't attempt to verify the facts at all. The Message was all that mattered.
This is why these institutions need to be burned to the ground.
The new age Marxists told us they were going to take over higher ed, and then they did. So, yeah.
It was an absolute success in intent, they pushed a propaganda piece and almost everyone fell in line to promote it without question. Even Robby first parroted the leftist party line about this case before being savaged in the comments, but good on him for the change in tune.
The failure is it was too much too soon because there was still enough critical thinking in the populace to torpedo the lies being pushed.
Also, you cannot be loose in the facts in a work of fiction which modern journalism, and this story specifically, have become.
Even Robby first parroted the leftist party line about this case before being savaged in the comments, but good on him for the change in tune.
I finally woke up the the media's bias during the 1993-94 period when Newsweek wrote that "White Male Paranoia" article (funny how they're still calling out blatant self-descriptions of their agenda "paranoia" 30 years later), then after the mid-terms when Peter Jennings made that sour-grapes comment about the voters having "a temper tantrum." The Dan Rather debacle and the increasingly blatant left-wing editorializing that J-school grads have indulged in for the last 20-odd years simply confirmed that journalists cannot be trusted in any way, shape, or form. They're just Squealers for the left-liberal regime.
Since Wenner is such a dickhead does that make every one of his statements a rape?
“Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
"Mind blowing!" -Mary Todd
I needed that joke like a needed a hole in the head.
And don't forget how that magazine printed story after story about how the HIV virus was not the real cause of AIDS. I hope nobody actually used that as advice.
Anyone who actually believed that shit probably wasn't taking very many precautions against catching the disease, anyway.
The only time I’ve read anything in Rolling Stone was while waiting at the barber in about 1987. It seemed dated and irrelevant then, and hasn’t published anything other than DNC propaganda in the past 20 years at least. Those seriously interested in music stopped following it long ago.
As much as I hate the mythos of Frank Zappa, he did have moments of lucidity, "Definition of rock journalism: People who can’t write, doing interviews with people who can’t think, in order to prepare articles for people who can’t read."
If your first thought when it comes to promoting or finding out what's hot in the world of rock and roll is "Let's get to the newsstand!", the genre's probably not for you.
>>I hate the mythos of Frank Zappa
please enlighten me with your blaspheme ...
Saw a band cover “broken hearts are for assholes” in a small bar in Moab Utah almost 30 years ago. Complete with xylophone and background announcer (“a demented bread boffer, 400 pounds of Samoan dynamite”, etc…)
It was hilarious. When they got to the “I’m gonna ram it, ram it up your poop chute” part everyone who was dancing stopped and stared at the singer like he was Marty McFly shredding his guitar at the 1955 prom.
An old guy came on the stage and said something to the singer and the show was over. Funniest shit I’ve seen from a bar band ever.
Kicked MC Hammers ass in foosball later that night at a different bar. True story. Good times.
love it.
Well, now I'm curious what you consider the "mythos of Frank Zappa" and why you hate it.
Combination of factors. To be clear; his music doesn't appeal to me but I'm not saying he wasn't a musician or should have any of his awards stripped from him or anything. Top of the list: There is a sub genre of Zappa fans who cite him as a genius for recognizing the rise of Christofascism in the 80s, they insist his death... of cancer... that he wrote about... and had symptoms of for years, if not decades... was a conspiracy.
This trickles down through the rest of his fandom. Everybody who is a fan talks about him talks with a "I don't mean to use the term genius but..." genuflection which feels very much akin to Rage Against The Machine fans wearing their store-bought Che Guevara t-shirts and talking about taking down the system.
Even more strictly musical, again not saying he should have awards stripped or anything, 9 times out of 10 anybody says "So-and-so cites him as a major influence in their work." 'So-and-so' is someone I've never heard of and, of the times I have heard of 'So-and-so' it's somebody like Weird Al Yankovic who's musical career consisted of duplicating Huey Lewis and Michael Jackson note-for-note. Which relegates Frank to being pointy-chin-and-mustache-having genius, I guess.
Again, not to impugn every last fan of Zappa. I almost certainly like some bands that other people don't like. But the amount of worship heaped on Zappa seems very much like the opposite of genius.
I literally grew up with “apostrophe/overnight sensation”, and knew all of the lyrics by the time I was in 6th grade if not earlier (which is probably child abuse some places). But I know what you mean. I’ve run into multiple Zappa hipster cultists.
Thing is I actively hate most of the stuff on his other albums. Especially Mothers of Invention era. Obnoxiously frantic xilojazz which goes nowhere and does nothing. I’ve been assured this means I’m a Zappa poser.
I don’t know. Joes Garage and Hot Rats have some ok stuff, I guess. But I generally can’t stand most of it.
His frequent characterizations of pop music as pure banality is hokem as well. It’s way harder to craft a good pop song than a 20 minute noodle jazz jam session.
It’s way harder to craft a good pop song than a 20 minute noodle jazz jam session.
Labor theory of value?
No, the consumer ultimately decides the value. Which means technical prowess is still often highly overrated.
That said, If we’re going to shittalk banter about not just the artistic value of pure pop catchiness verses jazz/prog technical proficiency on parade-but the value of the craft that goes into the final product. I still think pop wins.
True, Part of the reason I’m saying this might be because I could barely play any instrument I’ve ever handled. But I’ve also known a zillion guitarists and drummers who were insanely good at licks and fills but couldn’t write an actual song to save their lives.
Zappa bridges the gap really well on a few albums. And he’s great fun in an interview. But mostly he’s frantic xilo-jazz to me. I’m not sure how much of the cult following is musically based and how much is his personality.
* obviously this is all subjective as fuck. But if he’s going to attack pop structure and artistic gravitas, I’m gonna push back.
try phish.
Heh. A bunch of my brothers friends were all in on them. And he’d go to the shows every once in a while where they played on trampolines and shit. Impressive. Not really my scene though.
As far as touring bands that somehow gathered a rabid hippy cult following , I can dig on some Ween. But that’s about as much nitrous huffing as I do anymore.
phish is top of the game right now they melt my face every time.
edit: you'll forget what song they're playing half the time and they make it up on the fly. unbelievable.
OK, a lot of that is fair enough. I'm a big Zappa fan, and I will argue that he is undoubtedly a musical genius for purely technical reasons, but yeah, people do get a little carried away.
>>I’m a big Zappa fan
yep.
but yeah, people do get a little carried away.
yep.
so conduct an expose on campus rape using real stories you stupid fuck. who brought this asshole back to life?
"You get beyond the factual errors that sank that story, and it was really about the issue of rape and how it affects women on campus, their lack of rights.
Boomer Hack admits Journalism is about Narrative, not Facts, full story in next month's full-color issue with *checks notes* Bob Dylan on the cover.
This is absolutely the best thing since Marion Barry said "Aside from the killins, the crime rate [in Washington DC] is down."
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I’m an alum of the UVA fraternity that was slandered by Rolling Stone and, frankly, think we should sue them again.
Also, as much as I love the school, the administration condemned the fraternity, despite the facts, and did nothing to prevent its vandalism and threats against the brothers. Still waiting for that apology. Say what you will about fraternities, these are and were “good regular guys” who went through hell thanks to Mr Wenner’s fraudulent journalism. Rolling Stone is a joke of a publication and sad relic of what used to be courageous journalism.
There's an article on RS now called "Chaos, Comedy & Crying Rooms: Inside Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show" that has really low ethical reporting. Nobody goes on record, everyone is anonymous, mostly from former employees, and no specific examples of Fallon creating a toxic workplace, just things like "Jimmy has good days and bad days." The show has had something like 10 show runners in 10 years and people on deep background complaining Fallon was mean. Journalists too easily give anonymity, the same way government too easily marks documents classified. It creates these implications of wrong doing or overabbundance of caution, but it erodes credibility.
Yes that article is absurd and of course there are always disgruntled employees. Fallon doesn’t need to be in a perfect mood, every day, for ten years. It’s a bunch of babies whining, because they can’t handle a high stress environment. And it’s high stress, because the point is to put on the highest quality program possible, for the audience. What a bunch of loser children, complaining because they just can't cut it.
The guy has lost touch with reality. He probably should not be running a news magazine.
I have to say, I have become something of a Robby Soave fan boy. He seems to consistently report on issues and events that I find interesting, and he is almost always in agreement with my own opinion and conclusions about stuff.
I know it is fashionable on HnR comments to bash Reason. I do it too. Soave is one of the best real journalists, IMHO.
Take a bow Soave!
American women are the most privileged group of people on the planet, in the entirety of human history.
You were making perfect sense until you started whining about allowing rock starts to edit their puff piece interviews. WGAF…it is entertainment “journalism”, not interviewing the President.
Way to dilute your important points about RS helping a fabricated rape allegation wreck the lives of multiple innocent people.
But good article overall and you just didn’t stick the landing, by any stretch.
It wasn't bulletproof. It was through and through. Once the bullet has punched out the other side and continued on its way you don't have to worry about it anymore.
"It was bulletproof."
"It was a hoax."
"Yes, but other than that, it was bulletproof."
"So, the hoax was bulletproof?"