4 ms·

Perhaps Rolling Stone would like a little introspection given their fear mongering and false reporting about the University of Virginia. http://www.nytimes.com

Perhaps Rolling Stone would like a little introspection given their fear mongering and false reporting about the University of Virginia. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/business/media/rolling-stone-stays-focused-as-defamation-trial-is-set-to-begin.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/business/media/rolling-sto...

xexers 10y ago
Are you willing to give "Rolling Stone" a second chance? They've been quite apologetic about that incident. Op's piece seems pretty good to me.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Nope, since frankly, I wasn't giving them a chance before the incident. They had their heyday, but they are just another outrage press now. Their Boston Bombing cover was reprehensible. Its just another data point of a trend line.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    IMO it was responsible of them publish that viewpoint and I respect them for doing so while the rest of the media was busy grabbing pitchforks and pouring gas over crosses. The guy was guilty as all hell but the way it all went down was shady. Getting him sentenced to death would have been a cakewalk if done by the book. Instead it was years of press releases making him look more and more guilty and getting that spun around in the media. Even if the result was the same he didn't get a fair trail because the media had him hanging before the dust settled. At least someone had the balls to play devil's advocate.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Their cover tried to glorify him like a rock star. Getting caught in the act generally results in a guilty verdict.
cha-cho 10y ago
It feels a little insulting to read that headline after watching the 20/20 report on the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax. For that story they relied on one source and didn't listen to their own fact checkers. In the process they damaged the reputation of a university, seemingly destroyed the career of the dean, and wasted the time of a lot of well-intentioned people. An ounce of scrutiny or patience could have prevented the whole mess.
ahartman00 10y ago
I agree. When I read this there was a banner on the side showing selected Trump quotes, and the first story at the bottom was about those scary clowns. I like how they point out politicians and the right wing media will use fear, but conveniently ignore the possibility of left wing media using such tactics, while other articles linked to on the same page use such tactics.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Whataboutism. Rolling Stone did retract the story, and has done some considerble introspection on the topic. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campu... A key point of the story for me, having seen multiple other instances of people claiming narratives which proved false, is that it is difficult to guard against someone who is committed to telling and promoting untruth. The more so if the person appeals to you as sympathetic or persuasive. This is at the very heart of the con. It's why being both compassionate to someone who's claiming wrongdoing, and making triply-certain you've dotted all 'i's and crossed all 't's is so crucial. Hoaxes and (bogus) conspiracy stories, financial and business cons, and political cons work like this. They press all our psychological levers which are geared toward belief, and twist them. Piltdown Man, Crop Circles, Clever Hans (the more so as the perpetrator himself was by all accounts among the deceived), the Chess Turk, and other hoaxes. I could draw more examples from current headlines, though that might prove more divisive.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > Whataboutism people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones > Rolling Stone did retract the story, and has done some considerble introspection on the topic. Let's look at that link: "Erdely and her editors had hoped their investigation would sound an alarm about campus sexual assault and would challenge Virginia and other universities to do better." They weren't reporting news, they were doing advocacy and fear mongering. Nowhere do they say, this is a bad thing for journalists to do. "At Columbia, an aggrieved student dragged a mattress around campus to call attention to her account of assault and injustice. The facts in these cases were sometimes disputed, but they had generated a wave of campus activism." "Sometimes disputed: must be the new word for the accused was innocent[1]. Even their outside report is dishonest about the subject. Also, the whole section on their asking for comment from the fraternity without providing any information on what the reporter wanted comment about is beyond unkind. but as to learning from the experience: "Yet Rolling Stone's senior editors are unanimous in the belief that the story's failure does not require them to change their editorial systems." 1) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/magazine/have-we-learned-anything-from-the-columbia-rape-case.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/magazine/have-we-learned-a...

xexers 10y ago

Are you willing to give "Rolling Stone" a second chance? They've been quite apologetic about that incident. Op's piece seems pretty good to me.

protomyth 10y ago
Nope, since frankly, I wasn't giving them a chance before the incident. They had their heyday, but they are just another outrage press now. Their Boston Bombing cover was reprehensible. Its just another data point of a trend line.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  IMO it was responsible of them publish that viewpoint and I respect them for doing so while the rest of the media was busy grabbing pitchforks and pouring gas over crosses. The guy was guilty as all hell but the way it all went down was shady. Getting him sentenced to death would have been a cakewalk if done by the book. Instead it was years of press releases making him look more and more guilty and getting that spun around in the media. Even if the result was the same he didn't get a fair trail because the media had him hanging before the dust settled. At least someone had the balls to play devil's advocate.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Their cover tried to glorify him like a rock star. Getting caught in the act generally results in a guilty verdict.

cha-cho 10y ago

It feels a little insulting to read that headline after watching the 20/20 report on the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax. For that story they relied on one source and didn't listen to their own fact checkers. In the process they damaged the reputation of a university, seemingly destroyed the career of the dean, and wasted the time of a lot of well-intentioned people. An ounce of scrutiny or patience could have prevented the whole mess.

ahartman00 10y ago

I agree. When I read this there was a banner on the side showing selected Trump quotes, and the first story at the bottom was about those scary clowns. I like how they point out politicians and the right wing media will use fear, but conveniently ignore the possibility of left wing media using such tactics, while other articles linked to on the same page use such tactics.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Whataboutism. Rolling Stone did retract the story, and has done some considerble introspection on the topic. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campu... A key point of the story for me, having seen multiple other instances of people claiming narratives which proved false, is that it is difficult to guard against someone who is committed to telling and promoting untruth. The more so if the person appeals to you as sympathetic or persuasive. This is at the very heart of the con. It's why being both compassionate to someone who's claiming wrongdoing, and making triply-certain you've dotted all 'i's and crossed all 't's is so crucial. Hoaxes and (bogus) conspiracy stories, financial and business cons, and political cons work like this. They press all our psychological levers which are geared toward belief, and twist them. Piltdown Man, Crop Circles, Clever Hans (the more so as the perpetrator himself was by all accounts among the deceived), the Chess Turk, and other hoaxes. I could draw more examples from current headlines, though that might prove more divisive.

protomyth 10y ago
> Whataboutism people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones > Rolling Stone did retract the story, and has done some considerble introspection on the topic. Let's look at that link: "Erdely and her editors had hoped their investigation would sound an alarm about campus sexual assault and would challenge Virginia and other universities to do better." They weren't reporting news, they were doing advocacy and fear mongering. Nowhere do they say, this is a bad thing for journalists to do. "At Columbia, an aggrieved student dragged a mattress around campus to call attention to her account of assault and injustice. The facts in these cases were sometimes disputed, but they had generated a wave of campus activism." "Sometimes disputed: must be the new word for the accused was innocent[1]. Even their outside report is dishonest about the subject. Also, the whole section on their asking for comment from the fraternity without providing any information on what the reporter wanted comment about is beyond unkind. but as to learning from the experience: "Yet Rolling Stone's senior editors are unanimous in the belief that the story's failure does not require them to change their editorial systems." 1) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/magazine/have-we-learned-anything-from-the-columbia-rape-case.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/magazine/have-we-learned-a...