SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-believe-everything-you-read dept.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37879151
Rolling Stone magazine and a journalist have been found guilty of defamation over a false article about a gang rape at the University of Virginia.
The $7.5m (£6m) lawsuit was brought by Nicole Eramo, an associate dean from the university, who said the article had cast her as the "chief villain".
The 2014 article, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, included the rape claim of an unidentified female student.
The magazine retracted the article in April 2015, citing inconsistencies.
[...] An investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department had found no evidence that "Jackie" had been gang raped.
[...] The amount [Nicole Eramo] is due in damages will be determined at a later date.
The 10-member federal jury in Charlottesville found that Erdely, the journalist, was responsible for libel with actual malice.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:16AM
The only part I find sad here is they aren't suing for enough put Rolling Stone in the graveyard with Gawker Media. And since we are all agreed now (confirmed by a court of law) that the lying bitch who Erdely found tried to destroy a lot of lives and was not in any way a victim, why is her identity still being hidden? Time to push her into the open and make an example of her too. Lying liars should be punished.
And that is what this is all about. This wasn't a difference of opinion, it was filthy lies told to advance a political agenda. They tried to destroy the lives of several people they KNEW were innocent; in "jackie's" case because her original lie to get some guy to bone her went horribly wrong and she couldn't muster the courage to stop the madness when it was clear innocents were going to have their lives ruined and Erdely simply didn't give a good goddamn as long as she pushed the all important Narrative. If we aren't going to make this sort of behavior so far out of bounds it doesn't recur there is zero reason to believe anyone in the media.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:20AM
The payment should match our current lynch-first society, where the stigma of accusation often lasts well past being disproved by law.
Should journalists who publish false stories be dis-journaled the way attorneys are disbarred?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:42AM
Yeah, let's just amend the First Amendment to remove press freedom!
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:21AM
A journalists' guild could do the same without any government intervention.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:51AM
Remember it's not really censorship if a private media conglomerate (Facebook, Fox news, etc.) is playing fast and loose with the facts.
Ideologues of several stripes love the letter of the law as it serves their interests.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:26AM
Rape-shield laws have already removed a piece of press freedom. The question here is what to do in cases like this where the combination of this law and "journalist ethics" combine to make a new class of victim.
I say name everyone or nobody.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:50AM
It has not been determined that the woman was not raped. Only that specific aspects of her story were false. It would not be the first time that someone who was already mentally fragile was attacked and ended up with a full-blown mental breakdown making them delusional. Naming her has very little public value and if she is sick it would cause her significant harm.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:37AM
No, continuing to make being a victim a stigma perpetuates the concept of the woman having "fallen" or being disgraced. If the man can be named every step of the way from arrest onward so should the accuser.
This was particularly true with the scumbag kid in California where the shame and "dirtiness" the woman felt was worse than the act itself. He raped her but the cultural stigma harmed her even more.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:24PM
> No, continuing to make being a victim a stigma perpetuates the concept of the woman having "fallen" or being disgraced.
So, your solution for the problem is to out the victims and let society beat them up and just hope that we all collectively decide not to mistreat them?
Really? Are you some kind zero-empathy sociopath? Because anyone with an ounce of compassion would realize that you fix the problem first before throwing the weak to the lions.
I suppose you are also OK with the facebook model where nobody has any privacy at all? Or is privacy only important when it protects you?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:24PM
Sure, there shouldn't be a stigma, but it's not going to be removed by pretending there isn't one. Perhaps the names of accused rapists should be withheld until a conviction as well since that also carries a lot of stigma that a non-guilty finding or a decision not to prosecute doesn't seem to wash off.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 06 2016, @11:33AM
It has not been determined that the woman was not raped.
And without evidence, it doesn't need to be. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's worth noting here the alleged victim doesn't even have an assailant. That was fiction as well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday November 07 2016, @02:55AM
Jackie is a total hoaxer:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/04/nicole-eramo-wins-rolling-stone-committe [reason.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:42AM
> Should journalists who publish false stories be dis-journaled the way attorneys are disbarred?
The reporter is now basically unemployable for anything more than ghost-writing listicles, so for all intents and purposes she has been disbarred from journalism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:08PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:19PM
What do you imagine happens to a disbarred lawyer?
They find work elsewhere too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 07 2016, @10:13AM
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 06 2016, @01:42PM
Should journalists who publish false stories be dis-journaled the way attorneys are disbarred?
Well, in olden times people who spread made-up stories around from place to place were called "bards."
So maybe journalists should be "dis-bard" (or "dis-barded")?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:23AM
It is just following in a long line of yellow journalism. Rolling Stone is hardly the first, nor will they be the last.
Nope, what is more important is the politics that informs this particular flavor of journalism. Feminism in the west is corrupt and malicious and needs to be held to account.
There, I said it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:39AM
> And since we are all agreed now (confirmed by a court of law) that the lying bitch who Erdely found tried to destroy a lot of lives and was not in any way a victim
No, that's not at all what the court found. But it is unsurprising that someone of your predilections would take the actual court ruling - that the RS reporter didn't follow basic journalistic procedure to verify statements - as confirmation of what you want to believe.
> And that is what this is all about. This wasn't a difference of opinion, it was filthy lies told to advance a political agenda.
Not in the least. You want to believe it was about politics when in fact it was about careerism. The reporter wanted a juicy story, the kind of story that wins awards and makes careers. She didn't really care about the 'Narrative' she cared about getting famous and making a name for herself.
The only one pushing a narrative is you. For you, it is all about 'narratives' and so you can't even conceive that other people have other motivations.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @08:14AM
You want to believe it was about politics when in fact it was about careerism. The reporter wanted a juicy story, the kind of story that wins awards and makes careers.
Erdely was already an award winning journalist. Cripes, you don't get a primo spot at Rolling Stone without having credentials and awards proceeding you.
And beyond Erdely, you seem to forget how the rest of the media came all over themselves selling it, and how anyone who initially questioned the story was shouted down as a rape apologist. That, my friend, is politics.
Politics sold the story, and this was just fanning the flames of the rape hysteria that a certain segment wants everyone to "listen and believe", even when RAINN has declared it largely a myth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:17PM
> Cripes, you don't get a primo spot at Rolling Stone without having credentials and awards proceeding you.
And you don't keep that spot unless you keep producing.
> And beyond Erdely, you seem to forget how the rest of the media came all over themselves selling it
And why wouldn't they? If it was true then it was an incredible story. There was no reason to suspect that the reporter did not follow basic journalistic practices.
> anyone who initially questioned the story was shouted down as a rape apologist.
You mean the people who made a lucky guess without having any evidence either? If the reporter is a terrible person for being an agenda-pusher making up claims without evidence, why would people doing the exact same thing with a different agenda be any better?
> , even when RAINN has declared it largely a myth.
And RAINN is the end-all and be-all authority? Are you now going to say that the Baylor rape scandal [dallasnews.com] is made up too? Their own Title IX coordinator [dallasnews.com] resigned staying that the school's administration deliberately rigged the system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @09:28PM
Different AC:
Erdely is still writing for Rolling Stone because the higher-ups say that it was all the fault of "Jackie".
Making up claims without evidence is different than doubting a story based on a single anonymous witness, with no efforts to substantiate the story with any other witnesses.
The college "rape culture" myth that the parent AC was mentioning is a myth because the rape statistics for US college students is lower than people of similar age that are not college students. Rape happens far more than it should, but perpetuating myths about it is counterproductive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @01:55AM
Erdely is still writing for Rolling Stone because the higher-ups say that it was all the fault of "Jackie".
Bullshit [dailycaller.com]
myth because the rape statistics for US college students is lower than people of similar age that are not college students.
Is it? What's your source? Did they also control for socio-economic status? Every single woman I've asked has told she me she was was either a victim of a rape or an attempted rape while at college. Yeah, that's anecdata, but damn, what are the chances?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @03:04AM
Bullshit
You're correct, I missed the year on the source I saw. Here is what they said last year:
"Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, acknowledged the piece’s flaws but said that it represented an isolated and unusual episode and that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine. The problems with the article started with its source, Mr. Wenner said. He described her as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who managed to manipulate the magazine’s journalism process. When asked to clarify, he said that he was not trying to blame Jackie, “but obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”"
Is it? What's your source? Did they also control for socio-economic status?
The difference is modest, but the main point is that there is a rape problem in the US and a "campus rape culture" is not the cause of college-age rape (you can contrast this with the very substantial prison rape problem and how the US culture treats it).
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176 [bjs.gov]
I'm not sure you could control for socio-economic status, since college education is something that determines it (comparisons from women/men-only schools might be interesting, but same-sex rape is even less reported).
Every single woman I've asked has told she me she was was either a victim of a rape or an attempted rape while at college. Yeah, that's anecdata, but damn, what are the chances?
The chances are pretty bad that you'd collect unbiased data with a large enough, representative sample size. It is sad how common sexual assault is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @02:52AM
Baylor is approximately 58% female, 42% male. From the timeline of the scandal, the number of Title 9 lawsuits and alleged sexual misconduct, the incidence of sex crimes is 0.0017% over a four year period.
In that time, Tevin Elliot has been sentenced to 20 years for sexual misconduct, and Ukwuachu 6 months detention and 10 years of probation.
The majority of lawsuits filed aren't specific to sexual assault, but Title 9 violations.
It seems if there is a scandal at Baylor, it is that sexual assaults are dealt with through Title 9, not as standard criminal proceedings.
But that would raise the standard of evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt instead of preponderance of evidence.
0.0017%
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Sunday November 06 2016, @11:22AM
...
> If we aren't going to make this sort of behavior so far out of bounds it doesn't recur there is zero reason to believe anyone in the media.
So they should all be in the graveyard, not just Rolling Stone - why do you simultaniously single out one, and then curse them all?
Ah, because of inconsistencies in your story. You may now go full jmo, froth at the mouth, and call yourself a lying bitch.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @12:16PM
How is that a lie? I can easily say "Destroy X. Destroy Group Y, which also includes X." without it being contradictory in any way.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 06 2016, @01:58PM
Rolling Stone hasn't been relevant since before Michael Hastings was assassinated by the CIA. They got a head-start on being good little establishment bootlickers before even the Washington Post were doing it. Let 'em die.
Even Frank Zappa called them "a bunch of fucking poseurs" before he passed away years ago.