More skeptics have emerged following the explosive story of “Jackie,” who says she was violently gang raped at a fraternity party but was discouraged from seeking medical attention from friends and was discouraged from going to the police by an apparently apathetic university administration.
I wrote yesterday some in the media who have raised questions about the story that appeared in Rolling Stone. Now others are standing up and requesting more information from the author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Washington Post writer Paul Farhi interviewed Erdely last week, and asked if she had attempted to contact the alleged rapists she wrote about but didn’t name. At the time, Erdely wouldn’t say whether she knew the names of Jackie’s alleged rapists or if she attempted to contact any of them. “I can’t answer that,” she said when asked by Farhi whether she knew the names of the attackers. “This was a topic that made Jackie extremely uncomfortable.” Erdely also said she left the names of the the accused out of the story at Jackie’s request.
Erdely told Slate’s Hanna Rosin in a podcast that she “reached out to them in multiple ways” but that “they were kind of hard to get in touch with.”
Erdely said during that interview that the fraternity these men belong to had an “outdated” website. She emailed with the U.Va. chapter president and the “national guy.” Erdely said, “They were both helpful in their own way, I guess.”
Rolling Stone editor Sean Woods told the Post that Erdely did not speak with the alleged rapists and could not reach them. Erdely made no mention in her article that she even attempted to contact the unnamed men. Woods also said the magazine “verified their existence” in part through conversations with Jackie’s friends. It’s unclear how else Woods verified the existence of the men and a Washington Examiner request for more information from Woods went unanswered as of press time.
It is striking that a journalist wouldn’t contact men she is accusing of a horrific crime at the request of her source. That doesn’t mean the story is false, but it is unorthodox.
Other questions are also outstanding, such as where Jackie’s parents were during this ordeal. Jackie said she called her mother at the end of her fall semester in 2012 in tears. She said her mother was with her in an academic dean’s office when she finally broke down. Jackie had not told her mother the full details of the gang rape. Perhaps Jackie still has not told her mother what happened that night, because if she had, it’s hard to imagine her parents not doing everything in their power to get justice for their daughter. Hard to imagine, but not impossible.
Sonny Bunch of the Washington Free Beacon also wondered why Jackie’s story appeared to be different from what she initially told U.Va. administrators. U.Va. president Teresa Sullivan said on Nov. 19 that the RS article described a rape and included “many details that were previously not disclosed to university officials.”
What details were left out initially? Erdely told the Post that she could address the questions being raised about her article, but that would distract people from the real story, which is that the U.Va. administration didn’t act on her allegation.
But if what she told the administration was different from what she told friends, that’s a big deal. If the university, for example, heard a story that didn’t sound at all like rape, how can they be vilified? Of course, if they did hear the gang rape story, then my original point that universities shouldn’t be allowed to adjudicate sexual assault is still valid.
Sullivan didn’t respond to multiple Examiner requests for clarification.
K.C. Johnson, co-author of a book about the false Duke lacrosse rape case, further noted that people quoted in the RS article other than Jackie are all people “who for personal or ideological reasons were inclined to vouch for Jackie’s credibility.” The eight people other than Jackie quoted in the article are from accusers and advocates.
Johnson noted one person in particular, attorney Wendy Murphy, who gave several false statements regarding the Duke case back in 2006.
Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal noted the inclination to believe sensational stories that play into our own biases, but cautioned against forgoing journalistic responsibility.
“Bad journalism is bad for journalism, and good journalists have a responsibility and an interest in calling out sensationalist stories whose details ring false even as they play to what we’re inclined to believe is true,” Stephens wrote.
Neither Erdely nor Woods responded to an Examiner request for information.
Melissa Bruno, the publicity director at Wenner Media (which publishes Rolling Stone) reiterated to the Examiner that RS found Jackie “credible.”
“Through our extensive reporting and fact–checking, we found Jackie to be entirely credible and courageous and we are proud to have given her disturbing story the attention it deserves,” Bruno wrote in an email.
And remember, none of this means the story is false, but it does raise some questions that the Charlottesville Police Department (who couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation) may have to address.
