6 ms·

Excellent. You can't just make things up for the sake of "starting a conversation". Either you report the truth or you're just a propaganda piece. I'm sure ther

by aikah 10y ago

Excellent. You can't just make things up for the sake of "starting a conversation". Either you report the truth or you're just a propaganda piece. I'm sure there is hundreds of real rape on campus stories out there (unfortunately). The Rolling Stone was fed with the lies they wanted to ear. They knew it was bullshit, they went ahead and publish that crap just "to start a conversation" ... hurting real rape victims at the same time.

return0 10y ago
> I'm sure there is hundreds of real rape on campus stories out there (unfortunately). Why do you think they did not go with a real one? What lies they wanted to hear?
- eberkund 10y ago
  If I had to guess? Laziness mostly, and picking the most interesting story with accuracy being an afterthought.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    I don't think "laziness" is a very good explanation here. The story was so obviously fake that the "journalist" in question actually had to do quite a bit of work to compose this story. Reporting a real, actual case, completely and honestly, wouldn't have been more work. But it wouldn't have hit so perfectly the narrative that was the selling point.
- douche 10y ago
  Reality is rarely as lurid as the Rolling Stone short story was.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    I dunno -- look at eg Penn State football, where other coaches were aware as early as the late 80s that Sandusky was raping kids. Horrific. Sometimes people really are that craven. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/new-court-documents-suggest-others-at-penn-state-knew-of-jerry-sandusky-abuse/2016/07/12/9752f5a6-4853-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/new-court-doc...
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      It's harder to spin that into a story about all of your daughters in all of the fraternities.
- morgante 10y ago
  It's a shame you're being downvoted, because this is totally a legitimate question (why do the least credible stories gain the most attention). This is a great analysis of the incentives which lead to that being the case (and it's a bit more complex than made-up stories simply being more interesting than real ones): http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    why do the least credible stories gain the most attention Is this so obviously true that it can be stated as a bare fact like that? I would think the very least credible stories get essentially zero attention, but then I always trip over it when people use a straightforward categorical statement as a way of emphasizing a weaker point.
  - tankenmate 10y ago
    Thanks for posting that link, it's one of the more thought out musings on controversy, divisiveness, and stubbornness I have read for a while. A good thoughtful read.
  - thecabinet 10y ago
    To summarize SSC: If Republicans agree with you, it doesn't do anything to prove your SJW bonafides. Your dad probably thought the killing of Eric Garner was awful, yawn. But defending Trayvon, now that's a "fuck you".
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  Real world examples tend not to fit narratives perfectly. Perhaps in many cases they involve non-students, or are off-campus, or don't sound as horrific (even if they are), or they are investigated seriously already (without help from a journalist), or the perpetrator or victim might reinforce a stereotype that the journalist doesn't want to contribute to. It doesn't mean the stories are less bad, or that there isn't a problem, just that the journalist has nothing to gain by writing about them. And some might actually contradict the politically-correct solutions being proposed.
  - toennisforst 10y ago
    Can you give some examples for these non-fitting cases? It would be interesting to hear as a non-US citizen since this debate seems so cryptic to me.
    - tbihl 10y ago
      The ideal narrative for this sort of thing is that it be committed against some respectable person who wasn't involved in any risky behavior, and that it be perpetrated by some wealthy or privileged person who then sees no consequences. Because if that happens (and that's pretty much what the story laid forth as its narrative), then it's an issue we all need to be terrified by and indignant about. If, on the other hand, the person was drunk out of their mind and targeted while walking alone: well that's something I can avoid by not engaging in risky behavior, so I can more easily move on with my life. There's a similar line of thinking in public vs. private schools, where some proponents of public schools want all private schools banned because, without those escape routes, those with means would put their resources toward fixing the public schools rather than running from the problem. For what it's worth, UVA isn't exactly great at this stuff (I grew up in the area and my wife is a grad), but the article was more than a bit unfair (even before it was revealed that the entire thing was a fabrication.)
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        There is nothing in the world we all need to be terrified about. You might need to stop reading huffpo
- imaginenore 10y ago
  Because real rape is rare. When you hear feminists claim 1 in 4 women on campuses are raped, it's a lie. When they tell you nobody believes rape victims, it's a lie (proving rape or sexual assault with modern DNA techniques is easy, and I've never heard of the police telling an actual rape victim to go home because they don't believe it). When they tell you 90% of rape is not reported, it's a lie.
  - zwily 10y ago
    How does DNA prove a sexual encounter is rape vs consensual?
- maehwasu 10y ago
  I recall seeing somewhere that Erdely received credible reports of sexual harrassment at schools like Yale, and rejected the stories as not being juicy enough. Calling her a journalist disgraces the entire profession (which hasn't exactly been covering itself in glory lately).
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> the lies they wanted to ear We don't actually know if they were lies. Certainly they weren't vetted as facts sufficiently for basic journalistic standards. And they probably wouldn't hold up in court. But that doesn't mean they are lies. Lots of truths wouldn't hold up in court, or be printable in a publication of repute.
- blfr 10y ago
  No, they were lies to the point where named people supposedly involved ("Haven Monahan") don't exist. It was a hoax. Sabrina Erdeley has herself written that she went out looking for a particular story. This is among the reasons why she is liable. In the US the standard for that is much, much higher than just failing to hold up in court. It takes actual malice.
  - hga 10y ago
    "Actual malice" is the high bar required for lawsuits made by "public figures" after NYT v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), which the Dean was inexplicitly declared to be by the trial judge. Which make the resulting verdict all the more impressive.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    Just because she gave a wrong name, you can't deduce that the entirety of her story is false. That doesn't follow logically. It can be littered with inconsistencies, that doesn't prove the absence of a rape. She could be (and probably is) a pathological liar. That doesn't mean she is incapable of being raped. It only means her accounts shouldn't be published and she's not a reliable criminal witness.
    - blfr 10y ago
      No, the story is false because it consists of fictional events. Nothing in it adds up: not the people (Haven Monahan, the frat), not the timeline. The events (sex on broken glass) are prima facie unbelievable. It was torn to pieces by WaPo, CJR, and the Charlottesville police. There is no doubt that it was a hoax. If she has ever been raped, it was a completely different event from the one described by the Rolling Stone. On the other hand, I don't think that Jackie is a pathological liar. She tried to catfish a guy[1] and get a little sympathy from college admins. She started off like a fairly reasonable liar (for a teenager) and got caught up in the whole thing. She's definitely at fault but much less than the Rolling Stone which went on a rampage defaming people left and right and instigating a mob[2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/08/catfishing-over-love-interest-might-have-spurred-u-va-gang-rape-debacle/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/0... [2] http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-vandalized http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-van...
dredmorbius 10y ago
You can make things up for the sake of starting a conversation. But when you do so, you clearly label it as fiction.
microcolonel 10y ago
I've not seen any convincing evidence that there is more rape on U.S. campuses than in surrounding society. I suspect this is why Sabrina had a hard time finding a juicy rape to capitalize on. She began with the conclusion, and fabricated observations to fit it. This means the "conversation" is exactly as ridiculous as the false pretenses guiding it. The whole idea of "campus rape" seems to be based on (small) surveys conducted with broad definitions of "rape" which most people would not accept. Definitions often include consensual sex which the respondent regretted after the fact, and drunk sex with forgotten/unknown consent.

by aikah 10y ago

return0 10y ago

> I'm sure there is hundreds of real rape on campus stories out there (unfortunately). Why do you think they did not go with a real one? What lies they wanted to hear?

eberkund 10y ago
If I had to guess? Laziness mostly, and picking the most interesting story with accuracy being an afterthought.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  I don't think "laziness" is a very good explanation here. The story was so obviously fake that the "journalist" in question actually had to do quite a bit of work to compose this story. Reporting a real, actual case, completely and honestly, wouldn't have been more work. But it wouldn't have hit so perfectly the narrative that was the selling point.
douche 10y ago
Reality is rarely as lurid as the Rolling Stone short story was.
- x0x0 10y ago
  I dunno -- look at eg Penn State football, where other coaches were aware as early as the late 80s that Sandusky was raping kids. Horrific. Sometimes people really are that craven. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/new-court-documents-suggest-others-at-penn-state-knew-of-jerry-sandusky-abuse/2016/07/12/9752f5a6-4853-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/new-court-doc...
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    It's harder to spin that into a story about all of your daughters in all of the fraternities.
morgante 10y ago
It's a shame you're being downvoted, because this is totally a legitimate question (why do the least credible stories gain the most attention). This is a great analysis of the incentives which lead to that being the case (and it's a bit more complex than made-up stories simply being more interesting than real ones): http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
- maxerickson 10y ago
  why do the least credible stories gain the most attention Is this so obviously true that it can be stated as a bare fact like that? I would think the very least credible stories get essentially zero attention, but then I always trip over it when people use a straightforward categorical statement as a way of emphasizing a weaker point.
- tankenmate 10y ago
  Thanks for posting that link, it's one of the more thought out musings on controversy, divisiveness, and stubbornness I have read for a while. A good thoughtful read.
- thecabinet 10y ago
  To summarize SSC: If Republicans agree with you, it doesn't do anything to prove your SJW bonafides. Your dad probably thought the killing of Eric Garner was awful, yawn. But defending Trayvon, now that's a "fuck you".
jeffdavis 10y ago
Real world examples tend not to fit narratives perfectly. Perhaps in many cases they involve non-students, or are off-campus, or don't sound as horrific (even if they are), or they are investigated seriously already (without help from a journalist), or the perpetrator or victim might reinforce a stereotype that the journalist doesn't want to contribute to. It doesn't mean the stories are less bad, or that there isn't a problem, just that the journalist has nothing to gain by writing about them. And some might actually contradict the politically-correct solutions being proposed.
- toennisforst 10y ago
  Can you give some examples for these non-fitting cases? It would be interesting to hear as a non-US citizen since this debate seems so cryptic to me.
  - tbihl 10y ago
    The ideal narrative for this sort of thing is that it be committed against some respectable person who wasn't involved in any risky behavior, and that it be perpetrated by some wealthy or privileged person who then sees no consequences. Because if that happens (and that's pretty much what the story laid forth as its narrative), then it's an issue we all need to be terrified by and indignant about. If, on the other hand, the person was drunk out of their mind and targeted while walking alone: well that's something I can avoid by not engaging in risky behavior, so I can more easily move on with my life. There's a similar line of thinking in public vs. private schools, where some proponents of public schools want all private schools banned because, without those escape routes, those with means would put their resources toward fixing the public schools rather than running from the problem. For what it's worth, UVA isn't exactly great at this stuff (I grew up in the area and my wife is a grad), but the article was more than a bit unfair (even before it was revealed that the entire thing was a fabrication.)
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      There is nothing in the world we all need to be terrified about. You might need to stop reading huffpo
imaginenore 10y ago
Because real rape is rare. When you hear feminists claim 1 in 4 women on campuses are raped, it's a lie. When they tell you nobody believes rape victims, it's a lie (proving rape or sexual assault with modern DNA techniques is easy, and I've never heard of the police telling an actual rape victim to go home because they don't believe it). When they tell you 90% of rape is not reported, it's a lie.
- zwily 10y ago
  How does DNA prove a sexual encounter is rape vs consensual?
maehwasu 10y ago
I recall seeing somewhere that Erdely received credible reports of sexual harrassment at schools like Yale, and rejected the stories as not being juicy enough. Calling her a journalist disgraces the entire profession (which hasn't exactly been covering itself in glory lately).

erikpukinskis 10y ago

> the lies they wanted to ear We don't actually know if they were lies. Certainly they weren't vetted as facts sufficiently for basic journalistic standards. And they probably wouldn't hold up in court. But that doesn't mean they are lies. Lots of truths wouldn't hold up in court, or be printable in a publication of repute.

blfr 10y ago
No, they were lies to the point where named people supposedly involved ("Haven Monahan") don't exist. It was a hoax. Sabrina Erdeley has herself written that she went out looking for a particular story. This is among the reasons why she is liable. In the US the standard for that is much, much higher than just failing to hold up in court. It takes actual malice.
- hga 10y ago
  "Actual malice" is the high bar required for lawsuits made by "public figures" after NYT v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), which the Dean was inexplicitly declared to be by the trial judge. Which make the resulting verdict all the more impressive.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Just because she gave a wrong name, you can't deduce that the entirety of her story is false. That doesn't follow logically. It can be littered with inconsistencies, that doesn't prove the absence of a rape. She could be (and probably is) a pathological liar. That doesn't mean she is incapable of being raped. It only means her accounts shouldn't be published and she's not a reliable criminal witness.
  - blfr 10y ago
    No, the story is false because it consists of fictional events. Nothing in it adds up: not the people (Haven Monahan, the frat), not the timeline. The events (sex on broken glass) are prima facie unbelievable. It was torn to pieces by WaPo, CJR, and the Charlottesville police. There is no doubt that it was a hoax. If she has ever been raped, it was a completely different event from the one described by the Rolling Stone. On the other hand, I don't think that Jackie is a pathological liar. She tried to catfish a guy[1] and get a little sympathy from college admins. She started off like a fairly reasonable liar (for a teenager) and got caught up in the whole thing. She's definitely at fault but much less than the Rolling Stone which went on a rampage defaming people left and right and instigating a mob[2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/08/catfishing-over-love-interest-might-have-spurred-u-va-gang-rape-debacle/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/0... [2] http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-vandalized http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-van...

dredmorbius 10y ago

You can make things up for the sake of starting a conversation. But when you do so, you clearly label it as fiction.

microcolonel 10y ago

I've not seen any convincing evidence that there is more rape on U.S. campuses than in surrounding society. I suspect this is why Sabrina had a hard time finding a juicy rape to capitalize on. She began with the conclusion, and fabricated observations to fit it. This means the "conversation" is exactly as ridiculous as the false pretenses guiding it. The whole idea of "campus rape" seems to be based on (small) surveys conducted with broad definitions of "rape" which most people would not accept. Definitions often include consensual sex which the respondent regretted after the fact, and drunk sex with forgotten/unknown consent.