> Whataboutism people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones > Rolling Stone did retract the story, and has done some considerble introspection on th

> 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...