3 ms·
I believe you are being willfully blind here. Your quote from Mike Semel comes from a Washington Post story headlined: "Jackie’s rape story was false. So why
by Lazare 10y ago
I believe you are being willfully blind here. Your quote from Mike Semel comes from a Washington Post story headlined:
"Jackie’s rape story was false. So why hasn’t the media named her by now?"
You're actually trying to use a story headlined that the "rape story was false" to argue that the same newspaper hasn't actually concluded that the story was false?
A quote from the same story: "Her story has been shown repeatedly to be false, both through news reporting and an extensive police investigation."
> But they never come to the conclusion you did: that there was no rape and the story was entirely fabricated.
...really?
- erikpukinskis 10y agoAh, in a lengthier response that I deleted I addressed that headline. That story is basically an opinion piece in the Style section. It's not a piece of investigative journalism. There are no new facts reported in it. And yes, I am dead serious that there is no evidence that the story was entirely fabricated. There is evidence details were fabricated. You take that as evidence that the story was fabricated in its entirity, but the quoted editor does not and I do not. I don't understand why you find it so hard to entertain the possibility that a pathological liar might be raped and then exaggerate the details of the story to gain sympathy. Why do you see that as an impossibility? I acknowledge it as a possibility, I acknowledge the possibility that she was not raped at all and made up the story from whole cloth, and I acknowledge that we don't know which really happened. Just as the quoted editor did.