UVa / Rolling Stone

I think there were a variety of red flags that should have stopped or at least slowed the publication of this story. For me, the refusal to give Drew’s last name would have been the last straw for using Jackie’s account. As a journalist, I understand that it may not be appropriate to use his full name in a story and, as a woman, I understand that Jackie was probably terrified of him. But it was the writer’s most basic duty to at least contact the attacker to give him the opportunity to share his account of that night. At minimum, the journalist needed to confirm that such a person exists. A simple Facebook search or a request to the university for access to the student directory could have saved Erdely’s credibility and shed light on the holes in Jackie’s story. This whole situation was difficult for me, because there are many points in the story that should be talked about and are a cause for concern about UVA and rape culture. But due to Erdely’s negligence in reporting and clear bias towards Jackie and other victims, readers can’t be sure if any of the article is trustworthy.

UVA Story

That was the first time I’ve read that story and I was hooked from start to finish. To now know that it was just false reporting and basically bad journalism is a sad case. Just reading the story and how the author put it together, the quotes, the word usage, etc. makes the author seem like a very skilled and experienced writer. I just can’t understand how he failed to fact check, run her story by other people that night, or even just use common knowledge. I thought it was very strange that everyone in the party just ignored a bruised beaten girl walking down the stairs, her friends did absolutely nothing as they saw her beaten and bloody and that her date “Drew” would just casually speak to her days after at work.

The story was so elaborate and mentioned so many people, I just don’t understand how the writer didn’t try to collaborate her story with others. For instance, he could’ve questioned the fraternity, question those at the party, question Jackie’s co workers at the pool, question her friends, question her hall mates, questions her parents, she could have along history of making up stories.

You can’t put all your eggs in one basket and here is an example of a journalist doing that by completely relying on her main, and really only, source. Just like that quote, “If your mother says she loves you check it out.” You have to check and then double check and then check again, because once you publish, there’s no taking it out of circulation.

UVA Story

I think the biggest mistake of the Rolling Stone story is that Jackie’s story was never truly corroborated. The entire piece is based almost solely around her account of the night, which is hard to fact-check because she is the only facts that the story has.

I think there are a few people that could have really prevented the entire debacle. The first being the lifeguard, but obviously Jackie was unwilling to provide a name until after the story was published. Knowing that he was a lifeguard at a specific pool and a member of a specific fraternity could have been enough, however. Moving past there, the most important sources that could have prevented the entire story are the friends that picked Jackie up after the entire incident. They were the first people to see Jackie, to hear what she initially said. Since then, she has had time to shape a story and portray it the way she wants to. If the reporter was to talk to those three individuals, they could have given a more realistic account of what the night was like and what Jackie’s state was at the end of it. If she was covered in blood with broken ribs, I find it very hard to believe that any logical person would have prevented her from going to the hospital, which was also a major red flag.

I understand how the whole debacle happened, however. As convincing and detailed as her testimony was, I would have likely believed it too.

UVA story

This entirely reminds me of the Manti Te’o incident. Too much trust was placed in one source. Hardly anything was confirmed with others. As the report said, reaching out to those three friends would have been critical. I think the first step in preventing an error like this comes before reporting even starts. When dealing with a topic like this, I think reporters need to question all the reasons it could be untrue. Could someone be lying? What would be someone’s motives to lie? Is it reasonable to think these events could take place? That at least opens a reporter’s mind to why this could be false and that would lead to more thorough reporting. A long time ago I saw the quote, “To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting.” And to me, that can be applied to journalism.

In the case of Jackie, her tentativeness to disclose details and names should have been a huge red flag. In the report it said that the writer was bothered by the fact that Jackie wouldn’t name the lifeguard. I think that goes back to needing to trust your instincts. If something doesn’t feel right, it might not be. When Jackie was hard to get a hold of, the reporter should have questioned what this might be stemming from. Ultimately, I feel like the writer let the source be in control of the story, and that was detrimental.

Analyzing Rolling Stone’s UVA Story

Considering the magnitude of the Rolling Stone story concerning sexual assault, I believe that the last step of the story needed to be accurately determining the identity of the man who “Jackie” accused of perpetrating her alleged rape and those around him that could have corroborated some of the details of Jackie’s story. The inability to do so might have been a result of Jackie’s own hesitations but should have been a must considering the magnitude of the story and the consequences that falsified information could have on the key players who were named or described in the article.

The portion of the article featuring Jackie’s story, much like the Manti Te’o debacle, centered on discussion with Jackie and people connected to her own account of what happened. As such, Erdely should have taken the time to construct portions of Jackie’s story from the other side; That is, the person Jackie accused’s identity, his position as a lifeguard as well as his affiliation with the fraternity in question. By connecting him to the fraternity, Erdely could have followed up by collecting key information regarding the accused and his fraternity, specifically if a function was held the night that the alleged gang rape occurred.

It’s tempting to sympathize with Erdely’s decisions regarding her reluctance to follow such a path. After all, Jackie was incredibly hesitant to bring the accused into the picture, with the motive being a reasonable one. However, Erdely desperately needed to understand how her depiction of what occurred relied solely on the account of one person. Throwing caution in the wind may have been the result of trying to not put a victim through a hellish ordeal again, but the risk far outweighed the reward in doing so. It was evident through Coll’s assessment of what went wrong that Erdely had other victims at UVA who could have been used as the focus in the story; However, their stories were “not as shocking or dramatic as Jackie’s.”

Virginia Story

I’ve been thinking about this story a good bit and talking about it with people since the ruling of actual malice came down a few days ago.

My main thing as I’m sure will be that of others’ is that a lot of the account is based on one source. This is extremely tricky because you want the victims’ story to be told and respect what it is she has to say. Not talking to other people named to corroborate the story or at the least get more background on “Jackie” is poor practice.

Frankly, there were so many missteps in this story, from not doing a full corroboration of facts to being just careless. It’s why actual malice was ruled, and why this is a careful study in how to go about reporting a sensitive story such as this one. I remember when it came out the cycle of reaction that came from it and the layers that emerged from it.

It’s like the saying you tell us: If your mother says she loves you, fact check it. That maxim could’ve been useful here. Instead, this is where the story is at, plagued by bad reporting and a lack of proper sourcing.

Rolling Stone Story

I think there were a variety of red flags that should have stopped or at least slowed the publication of this story. For me, the refusal to give Drew’s last name would have been the last straw for using Jackie’s account. As a journalist, I understand that it may not be appropriate to use his full name in a story and, as a woman, I understand that Jackie was probably terrified of him. But it was the writer’s most basic duty to at least contact the attacker to give him the opportunity to share his account of that night. At minimum, the journalist needed to confirm that such a person exists. A simple Facebook search or a request to the university for access to the student directory could have saved Erdely’s credibility and shed light on the holes in Jackie’s story. This whole situation was difficult for me, because there are many points in the story that should be talked about and are a cause for concern about UVA and rape culture. But due to Erdely’s negligence in reporting and clear bias towards Jackie and other victims, readers can’t be sure if any of the article is trustworthy.

UVA

I think the last moment that would have prevented this catastrophe would have been at the very beginning. Rolling Stone, more or less, based the entire story off of the account of one woman, the victim.

I understand rape is not something to be taken lightly but the fact that she claimed to be disoriented but remembered things to vividly should have raised a red flag in the beginning.

Also, the fact that friends were named but never spoken to is poor journalism. Elderly put so much confidence in “Jackie” that she basically overlooked every other principle if investigative journalism. She took everything Jackie said at face value.

Even when things seemed a bit off, the not responding for weeks in October, she still took Jackie’s word. Also, Jackie did not give specifics willingly. If someone is willing to speak about something of this caliber, they should realize that the journalist is going to want everything down to the last detail. It shouldn’t have been as painful as it was.

Furthermore, another catastrophe point was when the fact checker was asking about quotes from the friends, and they were unconfirmed by the friend. Elderly, again, needed only Jackie’s word for confirmation.

If you notice something is wrong the minute you start it, step back and reevaluate. Elderly did not do this. She went along with more or less a single source. That was what caused the catastrophe. Not the event, but the lack of solid reporting and multiple sources.