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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"