The dramatic Rolling Stone story of a gang rape at University of Virginia, which prompted national outrage until scrutiny of the alleged victim’s account began to raise serious doubts, was based on “misplaced” trust in the still-unidentified woman, the magazine said Friday.
The 9,000-word story, titled “A Rape on Campus,” detailed a young freshman’s horrific account of being gang raped on a floor strewn with broken glass after being dragged into a darkened room at a fraternity party in 2012. The author, freelance writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, identified the victim only as “Jackie,” and did not interview the alleged attackers. But the story blasted the Charlottesville school, saying university officials turned a deaf ear to Jackie’s complaints in the latest example of its long history of indifference to alleged sexual assaults.
In recent days, Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, the left-leaning Slate magazine, The Washington Post and other outlets had begun to question certain aspects of the account, noting, among other discrepancies, that no party took place in the location described in the time frame Erdely’s story cited. The magazine initially stood by the story, published in the Nov. 19 edition, but on Friday reversed course.
“In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced,” Rolling Stone Managing Editor Will Dana said in a statement. “We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.”
Read the full article at FoxNews.com.
The New York Times continues to employ the reporters that published the name of police officer Darren Wilson’s residential street as it refuses to apologize for putting Wilson’s life in danger.
Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson continue to work for the newspaper after publishing Wilson’s suburban Missouri street last week in the midst of controversy surrounding the officer’s exoneration in the Michael Brown shooting case.
Under pressure to pull the dangerous content, the Times removed from the reporters’ article a copy of Wilson’s marriage license containing personal information, but left in the street where Wilson owns a home alongside numerous other private citizens that could now be in danger of violence.
“The Times did not ‘reveal’ anything here,” Times associate managing editor for standards (REAL JOB TITLE!) Philip Corbett told The Washington Post. “The name of the street was widely reported as far back as August, including in the Washington Post.”
In other words, “But everyone else was doing it, mommy!”
It should also be noted that since publishing Darren Wilson’s address, the addresses of the two reporters who made Wilson’s address public, have also been made public by hundreds of bogs and tweets.
SOURCE: The Daily Caller.
The word spread within minutes of Michael Brown’s death – a young black man with his hands raised in surrender had just been shot by a white cop.
Soon, “Hands Up. Don’t Shoot!” became a rallying cry for protesters in the streets of this St. Louis suburb and a symbol nationwide of racial inequality for those who believe that minorities are too often the targets of overzealous police.
After a Missouri prosecutor announced Monday night that the grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson, the symbolic chant of “Hands Up. Don’t Shoot!” rang out from protesters from Los Angeles to New York to London.
In Ferguson, some protesters have been wearing shirts with the phrase as they demonstrate outside the police station.
Yet the witness accounts contained in thousands of pages of grand jury documents reviewed by The Associated Press show many variations about whether Brown’s hands were actually raised – and if so, how high.
In other words, the truth is not as important as marketing. And the press seem obsessively interesting in marketing a specific viewpoint.
SOURCE: The Associated Press.
John Nolte — A woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post to CNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.
The scandal is a classic case of Power vs. The Powerless. There is substance to the charges, including a lawsuit Cosby settled with the woman in 2006, and similar allegations from other women. As loved and lovable and talented as Bill Cosby is, as much as I am personally fond of him for all the pleasure he has brought into my life, looking into this kind of story is what the media is supposed to be about.
Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.
I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby has been accused of rape and has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.
Read the full story at Breitbart.com.