SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.

Rolling Stone Partially Retracts UVA Story Over 'Discrepancies'

Rolling Stone Partially Retracts UVA Story Over 'Discrepancies'QExpand
Rolling Stone's managing editor Will Dana has issued a statement announcing that they have found "discrepancies" in the account of Jackie, the UVA student who was allegedly gang-raped at a frat party two years ago. Dana adds: "We have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced." At the same time, the Washington Post reports that the fraternity in question, Phi Kappa Psi, are planning to release a statement rebutting key parts of Jackie's account.
The Rolling Stone statement, which you can read in full here, defends how reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely went about the story, including her decision not to contact Jackie's alleged attackers at her request. But "new information," they say, has caused them to question her account:
Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.
In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.
The Washington Post reports that Phi Kappa Psi will say in their statement they didn't hold a party on the night of September 28, 2012, and that several other key details in Jackie's account of her attackers aren't true:
The officials also said that no members of the fraternity were employed at the university's Aquatic Fitness Center during that time frame — a detail Jackie provided in her account to Rolling Stone and in interviews with The Washington Post — and that no member of the house matches the description detailed in the Rolling Stone account.
The Post also says they've been unable to corroborate Jackie's account, and that even some of her supporters on campus have begun to doubt her version of events, although they maintain she is clearly traumatized by something:
A group of Jackie's close friends, who are sex assault advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to Jackie but have come to doubt her account. They said details have changed over time, and they have not been able to verify key points of the story in recent days. A name of an alleged attacker that Jackie provided to them for the first time this week, for example, turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.
This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave's doubts about the story and called them "idiots" for picking apart Jackie's account, I was dead fucking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize. It means that my conviction that Sabrina Rubin Erdely had fact-checked her story in ways that were not visible to the public was also wrong. It's bad, bad, bad all around. (And, frankly, it could have been avoided, had Erdely been clearer in her disclosures about what she'd done to reach Jackie's alleged attackers and what her agreement with the girl had been. This announcement wouldn't be producing nearly the same shockwaves if those things had been clearly outlined.)
Saddest of all, this is bad in ways that have far-reaching social consequences: we've just begun, as a society, to not immediately and harshly question a woman who says she was raped. We've just begun to talk about campus sexual assault — which is, to be clear, still a very real problem at UVA and across the country.
I have contacted Rubin Erdely and her editor for further comment and will update if I hear back.
22l 4991Reply
Like
Like
249248
Discussions from People followed by Anna MerlanAnna Merlan’s DiscussionsPopular Discussion
All replies
This fucking sucks. This means that for the next, like, year at least, every article or expose or even individual account from a rape victim will be met with: "But that other girl lied about part of her story, so YOU ARE ALSO OBVIOUSLY LYING! FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE SO MUCH WORSE THAN RAPE, BLAH BLAH RECENCY BIAS BLAH!"
Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. One more shitty topping on the shit-and-vomit pizza that has been the first week of December, 2014.
Flagged
Anna, everyone makes bad calls on the internet now and then. People who are able to own their mistakes are few and far between. Even fewer are those who offer abject apologies. Kudos.
Flagged
What stands out to me in the Washington Post article are the quotes from other UVA students who are survivors of rape. Whether or not Jackie's story is true/partially true/untrue, rape still occurs on college campuses and gets mishandled by administration, and that's a huge problem. I really hope schools still take the point of the RS article very seriously.
Flagged
It's still true that very, very few rape accusations are false. It's still true that UVA's system for dealing with rape accusations is fucking atrocious.
It's also still true that this revelation is going to make it far more difficult in the future for reports to be taken seriously.
Flagged
I think the lesson here is to write down all of the details while being raped. It's the only way to be sure. Maybe tell your rapists to set up a camera. Otherwise, you bitches be lyin'.
Flagged
Anna, I realize that you're trying to be gracious here, but the Bradly/Soave article(s) were incredibly dismissive and elitist. Your response was warranted more than their "it couldn't possibly have gone like that" tone.
Flagged
I went to UVA and I just want to reinforce the obvious: whether Jackie's story was straight up fiction or just had minor discrepancies, the depiction of how Virginia handles rape cases was absolutely, terrifyingly accurate. The way that people are already using this to discredit rape survivors and give the school a pass is sickening.
I can't even process how far reaching the ramifications of this retraction will be.
(Also kudos for acknowledging and apologizing for the past piece, Anna.)
Flagged
Wait, we're supposed to be surprised that there are discrepancies in a story about a woman being brutally gang raped? The issue isn't with Jackie, it's with RS and their inadequate reporting. If they didn't believe her, they should never have published, not hang her out to dry in public for the crime of not being the perfect victim with total recall of a traumatizing event. The actual fuck?
Flagged
I am not sure that this story is false, though I understand why they had to issue the retraction. It is very hard to get all the details right after a traumatic event, especially if it is much later. Just because she lied about a detail or got it wrong doesn't mean her whole story is false.
Flagged
It's easy to look at famous investigative journalist success stories and say, "See? It pans out!" But it often turns out that sources or subjects aren't clear, don't pan out, or turn out to be false leads. It happens.
I don't really damn Rolling Stone here because sometimes you have to follow a hunch. Sometimes it doesn't pan out. It's going to be fuel for the idiot MRA fire, but I'm still glad they followed the story. Imagine how easily Watergate could've turned out false given that it was literally ONE source. It happens. It doesn't change how often women are sexually assaulted. It changes ONE instance among many.
Flagged
I dunno, according to the survivor advocates I've met, the first rule of survivor advocacy is that the victim's story may change. Party dates, descriptions and who was employed where seem to me perfectly reasonable details to screw up—-or perfect details for rapists and universities to lie about.
That said, I find it deeply irresponsible for Rolling Stone to run this story without verifying basic facts like—-they have no frickin' clue who these dudes are. You don't have to contact them for pete's sake, but you need to verify they exist!
Flagged
Hosts of other popular chats
Kinja is in read-only mode. We are working to restore service.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%