I don't disagree with your overall point, however I would raise three quibbles: > That said, I'm not convinced that Jackie fabricated this story. This seems l

I don't disagree with your overall point, however I would raise three quibbles: > That said, I'm not convinced that Jackie fabricated this story. This seems like an overly technical quibble. You even admit, further on, that "many aspects of her account were false", and that she "lied about the details". Many people would term that a fabrication, and while Erdely certainly helped, much of the false details seem to have originated with Jackie. I'm really not quite sure what distinction you're trying to make here? > it's very likely that [...] something terrible (rape or assault) did happen to her. "Very likely" might be pushing it a bit. It's certainly very plausible, but I think far too little is known about Jackie to say anything in particular is "likely". Then again, I'm not sure why it matters? Even more to the point, I don't think any of the details about Jackie are especially relevant to the story here, which is about Rolling Stone, Erdely, and UVA. Once it became clear that the story Rolling Stone told was fiction rather than fact, this stopped being about the young woman Erdely interviewed, and started being about Rolling Stone's editorial policies, their fact checking, and Erdely's skill and integrity. That being said, I take your overall point as being that it is worth keeping in mind that very little is known about Jackie, that by all appearances she is as much a victim of Erdely is anyone, she is unquestionably troubled and did not receive help, and that she is not being sued or prosecuted, nor should she be, based on what's known. And with that, I agree strongly.