>Few people questioned the RS reporter's ethics because Hey, she's written several well-regarded stories about rape for Rolling Stone...there's no way she'd hav

>Few people questioned the RS reporter's ethics because Hey, she's written several well-regarded stories about rape for Rolling Stone...there's no way she'd have the standards of an intern for this story, right? The loosening of journalistic standards was not uniform, but an exemption granted to this particular topic. People questioning details of the event were subject to attacks on their humanity, not least of which was characterizing it in this case as "rape denialism", transparently trying to transfer the obscene irrationality of holocaust denial onto it. There was no discrimination between honest criticism and the usual people who will inevitably question all aspects of a rape story. The story was crafted to be a narrative-enhancing rape culture story to end all rape culture stories, which even if the event was true, would not actually tell you anything about reality, just that one event. But now that it has collapsed, the narrative has inverted and it blatantly reinforces misogynistic views of rape. Still not representative of reality, but now the media are in the position of having to confront the fact that maybe what they were trying to do wasn't ethical in the first place, and maybe all those rules that some people are calling victim blaming really are important for establishing truth. But now it seems like most outfits are dropping the story like it never happened, because it embarrasses the media who would be obligated to report on it, and because you can't rectify "never question the victim's account" with journalistic responsibility and attempting to do so is a losing battle. This says some awful things both about the media and about the direction of American culture.