The Columbia School of Journalism and Rolling Stone magazine will release an investigation of the publication’s reporting of rape on the University of Virginia campus. We will analyze the report with references to key passages to help journalists sort through the document. For more on the original story, read below embedded tweets.
Recommendation 6: don't allow this reporting failure to stop aggressive reporting of the problem of campus rapes pic.twitter.com/iZ02Ek9zuZ
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Recommendation 5: Even in rape cases, seek corroboration pic.twitter.com/fq0wKJEohR
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Recommendation 4: don't let sensitivity stop the reporting in rape cases: pic.twitter.com/8y8TZAaiu0
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Recommendation 3: give an interview subject the details you have so he/she can give an informed response. pic.twitter.com/oxWwABtp2t
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Recommendation two: confront your source with information that might not make them happy: pic.twitter.com/GS5LvVS14c
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Recommendation one; ban pseudonyms in journalistic reporting: pic.twitter.com/UM7OPeCoZp
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Here are some things they SHOULD change according to the report pic.twitter.com/z1ONJpT6Dj
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
A stunning statement-Rolling Stone's editors see NO NEED for major changes in process: pic.twitter.com/skUJ4BDEdi
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
..the problem was that she relied on what Jackie told her without vetting its accuracy.
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
REPORT: There is no evidence in Erdely's materials or from interviews with her subjects that she invented facts;
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
How did the Rolling Stone fact-checker miss the problems in the story: pic.twitter.com/cKOGQBUpOh
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
How did the Rolling Stone fact-checker miss the problems in the story: pic.twitter.com/cKOGQBUpOh
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
A key lesson for journalists about sources and verification: pic.twitter.com/Z9q35KWXNA
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The reluctant source led to editors caving in and not demanding more attribution: pic.twitter.com/PLuTb5dhXx
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Editors also did not ask if the reporter had supplied enough information to people she was interviewing: pic.twitter.com/zIhvHa2Jtf
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The reporter said she was surprised the editors didn't PUSH HER to report more deeply and nail down facts and names: pic.twitter.com/mdvkGbQtnn
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
A key piece of evidence, never checked out that would have stopped the Rolling Stone story in its tracks: pic.twitter.com/dgB0mfts6y
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The publisher was to blame too according to the report: pic.twitter.com/9SxN3KJTvb
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
As early as April 2014, police had questions about "Jackie's" claims pic.twitter.com/2Xn1UewG6F
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
For six weeks, the reporter tried to get the name of the accused from "Jackie" -but stayed with the source anyway. pic.twitter.com/yD7AtR3EDJ
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The report raises the question- how much should a reporter reveal to the subject he/she is investigating. pic.twitter.com/oCcQhIAg0Z
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The report says the reporter did not provide the fraternity with all the information she planned to report, so their response was vague.
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Three people who "Jackie" said she spoke with after the attack said they never talked with her-the reporter didn't contact them.
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Over and over the report on Rolling Stone's rape report says the reporter never interviewed key people described in the story.
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
A key passage-just being sensitive to a "victim" is not an excuse: pic.twitter.com/uAzJB70mCD
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Report: the magazine did not pursue important reporting paths even when Jackie had made no request that they refrain.
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Rolling Stone editors say they went easy on Jackie because they thought she was a victim. pic.twitter.com/oYalO4Mf3q
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Rolling Stone said, "their main fault was to be too accommodating of Jackie"
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
A total breakdown, the report says: pic.twitter.com/qUkYQCHctm
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The report notes the damage caused to others: pic.twitter.com/sg6iN866cx
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
More than a week after Rolling Stone published A Rape on Campus, the reporter could not verify the name of the accused.
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
A week after publication, the reporter still didn't have the name of the man who set up the alleged attack –trouble. pic.twitter.com/SdgAsU9RPV
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
Rolling Stone's editors DID talk with "Jackie" pic.twitter.com/9fXOOuEXHd
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 6, 2015
The tension between source and reporter contributed to a lack of investigation pic.twitter.com/V16EuGzm3z
— al tompkins (@atompkins) April 5, 2015
By way of background, the basic facts are:
- Rolling Stone published an article, “A Rape on Campus” in November 2014.
- The story was written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely who said she looked at the issue at several big schools but was especially taken by what she heard around UVA.
- Erdely’s story focused on a Freshman at UVA named “Jackie” who Erdely reported had been gang raped by seven men while two other men watched and encouraged the others on. The incident, Erdely reported, happened two years earlier at a UVA fraternity house.
- The Washington Post and others raised questions about the story soon after it was published and Rolling Stone backed off the story and said it was no longer certain of “Jackie’s” story. Rolling Stone admitted it should have interviewed the accused in the case.
- Local police said they could not confirm any part of “Jackie’s” story but could say there was no party at the fraternity house on the night she said the attack occurred.
- December 2014, a month after the story was published, Rolling Stone explained why it didn’t interview the accused attackers this way:
“Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Sabrina Rubin Erdely reported the story, Jackie said or did nothing that made her, or Rolling Stone‘s editors and fact-checkers, question her credibility. Jackie’s friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported her account. She had spoken of the assault in  campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of Phi Psi, the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but that they had questions about the evidence.”
-
Rolling Stone asked The Columbia Journalism School to conduct an investigation into how the magazine had failed to catch the problems with the story. The university and Rolling Stone promised to publish the report Sunday evening at 8pm, then hold a press conference Monday.
CNN reported that when the report is issued, it will be accompanied by an apology from Sabrina Rubin Erdely. CNN also said Rolling Stone intends to remove the original story from its website and replace it with a copy of the Columbia investigation.
CNN reports that  “Rolling Stone Publisher Jann Wenner has decided not to take any disciplinary action against the editors or fact-checkers involved in the discredited story “A Rape on Campus.”
CNN reports, “Wenner believes the missteps by the magazine’s staff members — from managing editor Will Dana on down — were unintentional, not purposefully deceitful.”
Comments