Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux
Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,433 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
The central question asked by the Columbia report and by everybody else — Clay Shirkey, writing in The New Republic, said you don't need 13,000 words to identify the problem: a story too good to be true — is how could these knuckleheads at Rolling Stone have fallen for the bilge they were fed by their source, code-named, "Jackie." And certainly almost everything in the story seemed staged and melodramatic, the dialogue and internal thoughts ridiculous; it's not only obviously false, it's a cliché.


Mangum, anyone? Staged and melodramatic? However did the media, with all the resources in the world, fall for it?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
https://lexingtonlibertarian.wordpress.com/tag/crystal-mangum/


The Myth of Campus Rape, Another Liberal Lie


[April 8]

Liberals would like Campus Rape to be true so badly that they make up stories to support their position. Well, if they don’t make them up, they give falsehoods full support before checking the facts. Perhaps you remember the Duke Lacrosse case.

cnsnews does:

When Crystal Mangum falsely accused several Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, there were 160 major television news stories in the first five days after the players were arrested, but in 2013, when Mangum was convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in prison, there were only 3 major television news stories, a difference in coverage of 5,233%.

When the Duke lacrosse-rape story broke in March/April 2006, it was huge news, garnering massive, widespread coverage by the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as by FOX, CNN and MSNBC, and the print press, such as USA Today, New York Times and Washington Post.

(snip)

The story was explosive and politically correct: privileged white lacrosse players at a prestigious college rape underprivileged young black woman.

(snip)

The big television networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC – and the liberal MSNBC and NPR did not report on Mangum’s murder conviction.

The difference in coverage is noteworthy: 160 stories vs. 3 stories in the first five days of each event. That’s a ratio of 53 to 1, and a difference in coverage of 5,233%.

The television news industry (and NPR) gave 5,233% more coverage to the dubious allegations against the three lacrosse players — which were proven to be completely false and politically charged — than they gave the jury-tried murder conviction of Crystal Mangum, the false accuser.

Fast forward to today. We have the same scenario repeated all over again and the same reaction. So a woman named Jackie makes false rape claims and she is immediately believed. When it is found out that she lied the Left calls her a victim rather than the Frat Brothers who were falsely accused. AND THE WORST PART OF ALL THIS IS THAT EVEN THOUGH JACKIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS A LIAR, THE STORY LINE REMAINS THAT SHE DID A GOOD DEED BECAUSE SHE HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE CAMPUS RAPE PROBLEM.

THERE IS NO CAMPUS RAPE EPIDEMIC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
MikeKell
Apr 9 2015, 07:38 AM
abb
Apr 9 2015, 04:38 AM
http://www.contracostatimes.com/nation-world/ci_27866737/rolling-stone-retraction-rare-blemish-journalist-sabrina-rubin

Rolling Stone retraction a rare blemish for journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely
By Geoff Mulvihill Associated Press

Posted: 04/07/2015 02:22:27 PM

The retracted Rolling Stone article about an apparently fictional gang rape at the University of Virginia is a blemish on an otherwise illustrious career for the journalist who wrote it.

Freelance writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely has made a living out of long, provocative articles, but none as contentious as the piece in November that turned a national conversation about campus sexual assault into a louder debate. Other journalists quickly found inconsistencies in the story titled "A Rape on Campus," and on Sunday, Rolling Stone published a review that it had asked the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism to undertake.

The report was scathing, saying it was a "story of journalistic failure that was avoidable." That came after a finding last month by police in Charlottesville, Virginia, that there was no evidence to support the claims of the woman identified in the story only as "Jackie" that she had been raped by seven men at a fraternity house. In a New York Times interview, Rolling Stone publisher Jann S. Wenner described "Jackie" as "a really expert fabulist storyteller" who manipulated the magazine's journalism process.

The Columbia report did not support what some critics have speculated -- that Erdely made it up.

Such criticism is rare for Erdely, 42, who went to work at Philadelphia Magazine when she graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1994 and has written for several other magazines, including Self and GQ, over the years.
Advertisement

Some of her most prominent stories have been about the seedy underbelly of prestigious worlds. She has written about a suburban mother addicted to heroin and another who ran a prostitution service; she told the story of an autistic boy busted for selling marijuana to an undercover police officer who had befriended him. She has twice been a finalist for National Magazine Awards for pieces on harassment of gay students at a Minnesota high school and sexual misconduct by a doctor.

The Philadelphia resident, who is married and has two children, repeatedly declined to speak to a reporter for this article. But she apologized for the Rolling Stone article in a statement Sunday, saying, "Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience."

She called the past few months "among the most painful of my life" and apologized to "Rolling Stone's readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article."

Some of those who have worked with her see her as diligent and sensitive.

Lisa DePaulo, a longtime magazine journalist who also worked with Erdely for a time at Philadelphia, acknowledged it will be different for her now.

"Everything she does is going to be under scrutiny," DePaulo said. "The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Except for this -- and that's a big exception -- her work is solid."

Stephen Fried, a magazine writer and author who hired Erdely, said he supports her. He usually has her speak to a magazine-writing class he teaches at Columbia, but with the investigation of her work being conducted there, this year's appearance was scrapped. He still wants to have her in next year, though.

"I have nothing but admiration for Sabrina's work," Fried said Monday. "I have nothing but admiration for how she has handled all of this."

Said Larry Platt, who was the top editor at Philadelphia Magazine when Erdely worked there, in an interview with the AP in December: "As an editor, if I had to pick a reporter to nail a story based on their reporting chops, Sabrina would have been right up there. She's just dogged."

No other publications have said whether they plan to review Erdely's work, and Rolling Stone didn't say whether it plans to review her previous work for the magazine.

In a question-and-answer session with reporters Monday at Columbia, journalism dean Steve Coll said the review team did read some of her earlier pieces but didn't "go out and re-report them." They didn't ask to see her files on any stories, he said, and doesn't know what Rolling Stone would have said if they had.

Sheila Coronel, the journalism school's dean of academic affairs, said that the team spent two days with Erdely and that she cooperated "fully and professionally."

"The moment that was, that really she nearly broke down, was that moment when she was narrating, when she realized that Jackie's account was not true," Coronel said. "It was very painful for her, and I think more painful than all of the things written about her was the feeling that she had been betrayed by a source that she trusted and invested a lot of time and emotional energy on."

Asked whether Erdely should ever write again for a national magazine, Coronel said: "I don't believe that's our decision. This would be the decision of people who ask her to write for them."

------

Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela in New York contributed to this report. Follow Mulvihill at http://www.twitter.com/geoffmulvihill
how is this article possible in light of her discredited stories about the navy and priests in Philadelphia??
Oh it's entirely possible...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Quasimodo
Apr 9 2015, 09:21 AM
Quote:
 
The central question asked by the Columbia report and by everybody else — Clay Shirkey, writing in The New Republic, said you don't need 13,000 words to identify the problem: a story too good to be true — is how could these knuckleheads at Rolling Stone have fallen for the bilge they were fed by their source, code-named, "Jackie." And certainly almost everything in the story seemed staged and melodramatic, the dialogue and internal thoughts ridiculous; it's not only obviously false, it's a cliché.


Mangum, anyone? Staged and melodramatic? However did the media, with all the resources in the world, fall for it?


Yes, what Quasi highlighted in bold-faced red above.

I could not put it into words as well BUT that passage describes exactly what
I thought when I read the article for the first time, particularly Jackie's story.

Her story was so cliche'! so melodramatic. And all the main players
were such caricatures.

No way would someone actually voice a concern over their social status about
reporting a rape if their friend had just been gang-raped.

Jackie has watched "Mean Girls" too many times.

How could Erdely not sense that Jackie's story was a load of crap?

And, yes, the same thing was true about Mangum's fantastic story.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeKell
Member Avatar
Still a Newbie
LTC8K6
Apr 9 2015, 09:59 AM
MikeKell
Apr 9 2015, 07:38 AM
abb
Apr 9 2015, 04:38 AM
http://www.contracostatimes.com/nation-world/ci_27866737/rolling-stone-retraction-rare-blemish-journalist-sabrina-rubin

Rolling Stone retraction a rare blemish for journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely
By Geoff Mulvihill Associated Press

Posted: 04/07/2015 02:22:27 PM

The retracted Rolling Stone article about an apparently fictional gang rape at the University of Virginia is a blemish on an otherwise illustrious career for the journalist who wrote it.

Freelance writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely has made a living out of long, provocative articles, but none as contentious as the piece in November that turned a national conversation about campus sexual assault into a louder debate. Other journalists quickly found inconsistencies in the story titled "A Rape on Campus," and on Sunday, Rolling Stone published a review that it had asked the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism to undertake.
<SNIP>
------

Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela in New York contributed to this report. Follow Mulvihill at http://www.twitter.com/geoffmulvihill
how is this article possible in light of her discredited stories about the navy and priests in Philadelphia??
Oh it's entirely possible...
http://www.returnofkings.com/60822/did-ap-writer-geoff-mulvihill-lie-by-omission-in-defending-philadelphia-colleague-sabrina-erdley


someone online has raised the same question (I googled geoff mulvihill). Interesting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

The answer is because there was the desire and the necessity to believe - when one puts on blinkers so that there is only one direction to look and when one is unable to be deterred by what exists around one - well - one has such a fiasco. Watch sometime a horse drawn carriage in the midst of traffic (we have such things here in Cincinnati). The horses, blinkered, harnessed, have no option but to go forward - the traffic buzzes by but for those animals it is as if they are the only thing on the road - what cars? what pedestrians? what noises above or below ground? Nothing can be seen or heard - it is just the path ahead. And, should the poor horse perhaps have a mind of his own to explore the what ifs - there exists the whip of the carriage driver to remind him that there is only one path and that no thinking is permitted.
I do not think the comparison is off the mark. The femi-nazis and their supporters are no different than the carriage driver with his whip - question their view and the whip is applied. They want the blinkers applied to all - no questions - accept what we tell you (men are evil creatures who take advantage of all women in everything that they do), period.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2close2durham

Follow the money

Angry studies departments put out many more college grads than the sciences. They have to support lies because the truth would have them all out of jobs and the degrees branded as worthless. We have created an industry in business, society and government that depends on these lies for existence. Think how many government employees are funded by supporting the lies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Unfortunately, the humanities have allowed themselves to be overrun by such groups. History departments are just one glaring example. One has only to look at the topics for discussion at historical conventions (AHA is one such group) to see this at play. One of the reasons why the History Society was established was to return the study of history to its traditional subjects. Unfortunately, that group has been unable to sustain a journal which is the lifeblood of such an organization. Although I have long supported the history department of my alma mater - I noticed that they no longer even have a professor teaching European history, let alone British history. Students today (both at the secondary as well as the collegiate level) are growing up with little to no background, let alone understanding, of the roots of western civilization.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/04/09/hugs-are-now-sexual-assault-at-the-university-of-virginia/


Hugs are now ‘sexual assault’ at the University of Virginia
By Hans Bader

If you hug your boyfriend and as a result your clothed body (including your breasts) touches him, you could be accused of “sexual assault” through “sexual contact” under the University of Virginia’s broad new “sexual assault” policy adopted to appease the Office for Civil Rights, where I used to work (assuming you do it without explicitly agreeing on the details of the hug). Because U.Va. lumps together touching, “however slight,” and intercourse when it comes to sexual assault, requiring “affirmative” consent for both. (“Affirmative consent” is a misleading term, and does not include many forms of consent that occur in the real world, and are recognized by the courts, as I explain at this link. The new policy further warns that “Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy.” Portions of U.Va.’s policy are reprinted below.).

This is an outrageous violation of students’ privacy rights.

Moreover, making out is now effectively forbidden at the University of Virginia, which has rewritten its Interim Sexual Assault Policy under the impetus of the Education Department’s Title IX investigation. U.Va.’s new policy requires “affirmative consent” (rather than “effective consent,” as before) not just to sex, but also sexual contact, which encompasses touching. Of course, no one ever says things like “may I touch your breast” before doing so. These things are welcomed after they begin, not authorized in advance, but the policy effectively forbids step-by-step ratification after the fact (i.e., making out) by banning any touching “however slight” without such authorization, so if you touch your partner an instant before they welcome it, you’ve presumably violated the policy. Conduct should not be banned where it was not “unwelcome,” and not against the victim’s will, since unwelcomeness is an essential element of a Title IX sexual harassment claim (college sexual assault and harassment policies are required by Title IX, which requires that colleges not ignore sexual assaults and other misconduct that constitute unwelcome sexual harassment that is severe and pervasive. U.Va.’s policy is adopted under the rubric of Title IX. For potential constitutional problems created by policies similar to U.Va.’s, see this link.)

U.Va.’s policy provides:

INTERIM POLICY ON SEXUAL AND GENDER-BASED HARASSMENT AND OTHER FORMS OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE

Pp. 11-12:

1. SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual Assault consists of (1) Sexual Contact and/or (2) Sexual Intercourse that occurs without (3) Affirmative Consent.

(1) Sexual Contact Is:

Any intentional sexual touching
However slight
With any object or body part (as described below)

Performed by a person upon another person

Sexual Contact includes (a) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or Genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching another with any of these body parts; and (b) making another touch you or themselves with or on any of these body parts.

. . .

(3) Affirmative Consent Is: . . . . Active (not passive), meaning that, through the demonstration of clear words or actions, a person has indicated permission to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity

. . . .

A person who wants to engage in a specific sexual activity is responsible for obtaining Affirmative Consent for that activity. Lack of protest does not constitute Affirmative Consent. Lack of resistance does not constitute Affirmative Consent. Silence and/or passivity also do not constitute Affirmative Consent. Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy. . . .Affirmative Consent to one form of sexual activity does not, by itself, constitute Affirmative Consent to another form of sexual activity. . . .Affirmative Consent to sexual activity on a prior occasion does not, by itself, constitute Affirmative Consent to future sexual activity.

Hans Bader

Hans Bader is Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. Hans also writes for CNS News and has appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

abb
Apr 9 2015, 04:38 AM
http://www.contracostatimes.com/nation-world/ci_27866737/rolling-stone-retraction-rare-blemish-journalist-sabrina-rubin

Rolling Stone retraction a rare blemish for journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely
By Geoff Mulvihill Associated Press
[...]
Geoff is working hard to provide sunshine for that poor victim!

Posted Image



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

abb
Apr 9 2015, 12:29 PM
http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/04/09/hugs-are-now-sexual-assault-at-the-university-of-virginia/


Hugs are now ‘sexual assault’ at the University of Virginia
By Hans Bader

If you hug your boyfriend and as a result your clothed body (including your breasts) touches him, you could be accused of “sexual assault” through “sexual contact” under the University of Virginia’s broad new “sexual assault” policy adopted to appease the Office for Civil Rights, where I used to work (assuming you do it without explicitly agreeing on the details of the hug). Because U.Va. lumps together touching, “however slight,” and intercourse when it comes to sexual assault, requiring “affirmative” consent for both. (“Affirmative consent” is a misleading term, and does not include many forms of consent that occur in the real world, and are recognized by the courts, as I explain at this link. The new policy further warns that “Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy.” Portions of U.Va.’s policy are reprinted below.).

This is an outrageous violation of students’ privacy rights.

Moreover, making out is now effectively forbidden at the University of Virginia, which has rewritten its Interim Sexual Assault Policy under the impetus of the Education Department’s Title IX investigation. U.Va.’s new policy requires “affirmative consent” (rather than “effective consent,” as before) not just to sex, but also sexual contact, which encompasses touching. Of course, no one ever says things like “may I touch your breast” before doing so. These things are welcomed after they begin, not authorized in advance, but the policy effectively forbids step-by-step ratification after the fact (i.e., making out) by banning any touching “however slight” without such authorization, so if you touch your partner an instant before they welcome it, you’ve presumably violated the policy. Conduct should not be banned where it was not “unwelcome,” and not against the victim’s will, since unwelcomeness is an essential element of a Title IX sexual harassment claim (college sexual assault and harassment policies are required by Title IX, which requires that colleges not ignore sexual assaults and other misconduct that constitute unwelcome sexual harassment that is severe and pervasive. U.Va.’s policy is adopted under the rubric of Title IX. For potential constitutional problems created by policies similar to U.Va.’s, see this link.)

U.Va.’s policy provides:

INTERIM POLICY ON SEXUAL AND GENDER-BASED HARASSMENT AND OTHER FORMS OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE

Pp. 11-12:

1. SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual Assault consists of (1) Sexual Contact and/or (2) Sexual Intercourse that occurs without (3) Affirmative Consent.

(1) Sexual Contact Is:

Any intentional sexual touching
However slight
With any object or body part (as described below)

Performed by a person upon another person

Sexual Contact includes (a) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or Genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching another with any of these body parts; and (b) making another touch you or themselves with or on any of these body parts.

. . .

(3) Affirmative Consent Is: . . . . Active (not passive), meaning that, through the demonstration of clear words or actions, a person has indicated permission to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity

. . . .

A person who wants to engage in a specific sexual activity is responsible for obtaining Affirmative Consent for that activity. Lack of protest does not constitute Affirmative Consent. Lack of resistance does not constitute Affirmative Consent. Silence and/or passivity also do not constitute Affirmative Consent. Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy. . . .Affirmative Consent to one form of sexual activity does not, by itself, constitute Affirmative Consent to another form of sexual activity. . . .Affirmative Consent to sexual activity on a prior occasion does not, by itself, constitute Affirmative Consent to future sexual activity.

Hans Bader

Hans Bader is Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. Hans also writes for CNS News and has appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”
Feminist sharia law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HONOR_CODE_ROLLING_STONE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Apr 9, 5:17 PM EDT

U.Va. frat won't pursue honor code case against 'Jackie'

By BROCK VERGAKIS
Associated Press

A University of Virginia fraternity will not pursue an honor code violation against a student who told Rolling Stone for a story that has since been retracted that several brothers gang-raped her during a party, a spokesman said.

Virginia has the oldest student-run honor code in the country, which prohibits lying, cheating and stealing. Those who are found guilty of violations by a panel of students are faced with a single penalty: expulsion.

Rolling Stone based much of its November article on the account of a person identified only as "Jackie," a U.Va. student who said she suffered a brutal sexual assault at the hands of seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi house at a party her first year at the school in 2012.

Phi Kappa Psi has said it is exploring legal action against Rolling Stone, but not against Jackie.

"From the fraternity's perspective, this is about reckless reporting, careless editing, poor fact-checking and a negligent legal review," fraternity spokesman Brian Ellis wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

Following the story's publication, Charlottesville police investigated the claims at the university's request. Police said that there was no evidence an assault occurred at Phi Kappa Psi, that there was a party the night of the alleged assault or that the person Jackie said was her date was a member of the fraternity.

Police have said no charges are pending against Jackie, who never filed a police report and refused to answer investigators' questions. Following the article's publication, the magazine acknowledged mistakes were made and that too much trust was placed in Jackie. The story was eventually retracted.

An investigation by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism cited numerous failures by the reporter and the magazine's editors. The reporter interviewed Jackie eight times and a fact-checker spent four hours on the phone, with both finding the story plausible. However, the review found numerous holes in her story that should have been checked more closely.

Any student or faculty member could bring an honor code complaint against Jackie, and the school's honor committee regularly works to get students to bring forward more complaints. So far, no one has brought such a complaint publicly against Jackie.

The honor code complaint system is a confidential process unless the accused student chooses to make it public. It's not known whether Jackie is still enrolled at the university because her attorney has declined to comment.

At U.Va., the definition of lying entails "the misrepresentation of one or more facts in order to gain a benefit or harm another person, where the actor knows or should know that the misrepresentation will be relied upon by another person."

If investigators look into an honor code case and choose not to dismiss it, a panel of randomly selected students, honor committee members or a mix of both will decide the outcome in a procedure similar to a court trial. A simple majority is needed to convict.

---

Brock Vergakis can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/BrockVergakis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

The school should be pursuing an honor code violation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

"Phi Kappa Psi has said it is exploring legal action against Rolling Stone, but not against Jackie."

If Phi Kappa Psi doesn't have a case against Jackie, they don't have a case against Rolling Stone. Case closed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

sdsgo
Apr 9 2015, 06:54 PM
"Phi Kappa Psi has said it is exploring legal action against Rolling Stone, but not against Jackie."

If Phi Kappa Psi doesn't have a case against Jackie, they don't have a case against Rolling Stone. Case closed.
Like The Duke Lacrosse Frame, what the "law" prescribes isn't relevant here. This is another political case, and always will be
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply