Rolling Stone’s acknowledgement of “discrepancies” in its much-hyped and horrific story of a gang rape at the University of Virginia has journalists both young and established mulling over the state of journalism today. Brit Hume, a 23-year veteran of ABC News and now a senior political analyst at Fox News, today is naming and shaming those who uncovered the holes in Rolling Stone’s reporting and those who ignored them.
Is there reason to doubt the Rolling Stone account of a hideous gang rape at UVa? This writer & editor thinks so –> http://t.co/BCCLZvP3jq
— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 1, 2014
First and foremost, Hume credits a blog post by writer Richard Bradley for taking an extensive, critical look at a blanket PR statement by Rolling Stone claiming that “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.”
Here is the original blog post that cast doubt on @RollingStone UVa gang rape story. Example of power of new media. http://t.co/BCCLZvP3jq
— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 5, 2014
Bradley wrote:
Here is the problem that Rolling Stone has: The magazine clearly has lost confidence that it knows what happened that night—despite the fact that it published a chillingly specific account of a gang rape. And it can not re-report the story now. What’s done is done.
Also, it wants to put the onus of responsibility on Jackie, without looking like it is discrediting her. The magazine is carefully distancing itself from its primary source, but doing so in a way that it hopes no one will notice.
Nor will Rolling Stone simply admit that it screwed up.
And so it is using carefully crafted language to frame Jackie’s story as significant whether it’s true or not; the really important thing is how the University responded to it.
Which is a morally reprehensible argument.
Recommended
Also on Hume’s “good” list: The Washington Post, for following up on the story.
Much credit also due @washingtonpost for doing the reporting @RollingStone should have done on the now discredited UVa gang rape story.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 5, 2014
Coming in last: the University of Virginia’s own newspaper, which eventually got around to reporting on Rolling Stone’s “note” to its readers.
No credit due UVa student paper @cavalierdaily for coverage of bogus rape accusations. Even this pm no mention of @RollingStone retraction.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 5, 2014
Hapless UVa student paper @cavalierdaily finally posts a story on @RollingStone rape story collapse. http://t.co/V0aUwczPIV
— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 5, 2014
University president Teresa Sullivan: it’s your move.
Will UVa Pres. Teresa Sullivan apologize & reinstate fraternities after utterly premature reaction to now discredited gang rape story?
— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 5, 2014
@brithume doubt it
— Johnny Johnerson (@jperk1) December 5, 2014
https://twitter.com/ersears/status/540962179583705088
https://twitter.com/Shoopdj/status/540962270986399744
@brithume Betting large, very large, that UVA will go the way of Oberlin: "well, it could have happened." Also that RS fires nobody.
— Joe D #WAR (@joeinthejeep) December 5, 2014
Reversing a decision made on false victimhood pretenses would be politically incorrect. https://t.co/QCO9gdGoaI @brithume
— Fredo N. Twittur (@fredontwittur) December 5, 2014
@brithume Not holding my breath.
— Lillian Smith (@ioff10dream) December 5, 2014
@brithume Brit, along with her apology, a letter of resignation is in order!
— Tmflancaster (@tmflancaster) December 5, 2014
https://twitter.com/ringo_usn/status/540968122489241600
Join the conversation as a VIP Member