Confirmation bias: John Sexton breaks down Columbia Journalism Review's Rolling Stone analysis

One odd thing about CJR's piece on Rolling Stone. CJR seems to avoid reaching any conclusions based on later reporting.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

CJR footnote reads "If Jackie was attacked and, if so, by whom, cannot be established definitively from the evidence available."

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

Actually, we can say there is no evidence Jackie's attacker exists. But there is evidence she faked his photos, spoofed texts.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

For some reason, CJR doesn't note any of this evidence, all of which Erdely could conceivably have uncovered as the Post did.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

CJR includes some of the evidence the Post turned up (about the 3 friends) but not the most damning bits (about Drew). Why?

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

CJR uses info in this Post story: http://t.co/kqIf7uq7k3But mostly steers clear of this one: http://t.co/WuibSxvu2B

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

I've sent CJR an email politely asking why they chose to omit salient facts suggesting Jackie's attacker does not exist.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

I do find it odd that a piece faulting Rolling Stone for not giving readers important facts also does not give readers important facts.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

@verumserum Some do not seem to find the whole "fact" thing very important.

— shorty (@shorty8664) April 6, 2015

Granted what happened to Jackie may not be knowable "definitively" but that's no reason to omit things we do know definitively.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

For instance, we do know, definitively, that photos of Jackie's mystery date were actually an old HS classmate of hers.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

We also know this person credibly denied being in state and said the pics came from social media accounts.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

We know that Jackie's friends did not know this person. In fact, only she appears to have ever known this person.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

We know that the school has no evidence of anyone with the name Jackie gave having ever attended there.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

Point is, the known facts of this case go beyond "We don't know for sure what happened to Jackie."

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

The facts strongly suggest that this attacker does not exist and furthermore that he was an invention of her own making.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

The facts also suggest a possible motive for this: Jackie was trying desperately to impress another male student. The texts support that.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

I'm open to hearing what CJR has to say but again, very odd where they chose to draw the line on the facts and what the facts show.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 6, 2015

Feminists are simultaneously insisting that we must Believe At All Costs self-claimed "victims," while criticizing RS for doing just that

— TheClassyLife (@AceofSpadesHQ) April 6, 2015

Via @AceofSpadesHQ, you'll be shocked that @JessicaValenti completely misses the point of CJR report: http://t.co/gHDMFi5Ohu

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 7, 2015

She doesn't miss the point: she just hopes people will read her version and not look further. @verumserum @AceofSpadesHQ @JessicaValenti

— Dicentra spectabilis (@dicentra33) April 7, 2015

Rolling Stone's failure involved "confirmation bias." They believed because Jackie's story seemed the kind of thing that should be true.

— John Sexton (@verumserum) April 7, 2015

@verumserum It felt like a Lifetime movie so it was too good to verify.

— William Belcher (@EdB_Ohio) April 7, 2015