So What About The Rolling Stone Rape Article?

The woman behind the RS story is a liar; but the press is protecting her. Her name should be released to the general public.

Astonishingly, the Columbia School of Journalism treats the woman who floated phony rape stories to the RS as a victim.

The real (and only victims) in this story are the guys and the fraternity who were falsely accused of brutal rape and sodomy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...wrong-20150405 Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Sitting here in my office, I read this link.

It seems the Reporter, who is no novice, did a lot of correct things right up until the time that she, or perhaps her bosses, decided that this story was too hot to just drop. They took a chance that the odds might be that "Jackie" was on the level and telling them the truth.
This caused them to compromise their journalistic standards. They ignored many red flags, the most prominent being that the Lifeguard, who was supposed to be the ringleader, would certainly be easy to track down, even without a complete name.
"Jackie" probably realized this, but once the lie is told, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Her "fear" of him just won't hold water.
Fact is, the guy doesn't exist. The whole story falls apart.
This case should be taught in every Journalism School as an example of how not to do it.

The woman behind the RS story is a liar; but the press is protecting her. Her name should be released to the general public.

Astonishingly, the Columbia School of Journalism treats the woman who floated phony rape stories to the RS as a victim.

The real (and only victims) in this story are the guys and the fraternity who were falsely accused of brutal rape and sodomy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...wrong-20150405 Originally Posted by Whirlaway

"rich"(white) frat boys aren't in a protected class

besides if they didn't do it this time, they or someone like them has done it and will do it

and if the woman behind the story lied, that's ok,makes up for the countless unreported rapes out there. she must be protected at all costs so other rape "victims" wont be afraid to forward...and who knows she wont be raped in the future..and besides every time a man has looked at her with that look, that's rape, so she hasn't lied at all


plus liberal women. blacks , immigrants, liberals, union members (the white ones are borderline), Obama, et al are either too stupid or fragile or discriminated against for us to be honest about.....hell , haven't you noticed, we arent honest about anything much

...besides if they didn't do it this time, they or someone like them has done it and will do it ..... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

sarcasm? .... I hope.

sarcasm? .... I hope. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I was channeling the liberal and the liberal media viewpoint and mindset

since these are real points of view, it wasn't sarcasm

While I agree with much of what you say, I do not believe in the death penalty for everything. They should be stung very noticeably, but bankrupting them does little good.

The press, as with politics, has become run by the fringes. Removing one fringe player doesn't fix anything. Changing the mindset, reintroducing responsibility be it in journalism, politics, education, or running a pizza parlor is the only cure. But right now it seems the word "responsible" itself has been hijacked to mean "agree with me on all things". I can see the symptoms of the disease all around, but I do not know how to fix it. I see almost noone seriously believe in responsibility any more--I see them believe that everyone should adopt THEIR morals and then all will be well. Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree with you. The press is very important, and I would no more want to be put out of business because one of my employees sexually harassed a girl than a magazine go down because of a rogue reporter. Mistakes get made, civil suits happen, sometimes it is made right, and we all live to pointlessly argue with people who are idiots like ShamWow another day.

What type of business do you run, DSK? How many do you employ?

I'm just trying to figure out when YR's parents are going "to pay"!

Perhaps they have suffered daily for years, which is sufficient punishment for their creation. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How many years do you figure that is, Methusaleh?

They can hear you scratching your head all the way in Clarksville. You could probaby get an ointment for that at Nau's, dipshit.

I agree with you. The press is very important, and I would no more want to be put out of business because one of my employees sexually harassed a girl than a magazine go down because of a rogue reporter. Originally Posted by DSK

But the way you address the issue with the sexually harassed female is shit can the harasser as soon as you discover the was sexually harassed .. even if the harasser is your best friend (and probably more so!). Same with the reporters .... the day the story is questioned the reporter gets interrogated regarding what he did to verify the story and review his/her notes. Look at the layers of "supervising" personnel that such a story filters through before the "ink is dry."

This problem is systemic in the magazine.

How many years do you figure that is,..... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Regardless, I can imagine even a day is too burdensome...It really justifies a careful examination of a policy of encouraging abortions, and justifying passing the cost along to taxpayers. A service to the community. Even Clarksville.

What type of business do you run, DSK? How many do you employ? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your Obamacare supplement expiring?

Thank you Captain Obvious.



Actually the two have a great deal in common. Both are examples of narrative driven 'reporting' rather than fact driven reporting.

Lets add in MSNBC's hilarious but shameful attempt at stirring up race paranoia by deliberately editing a clip of a man carrying an assault rifle to a Tea Party rally. They edited their footage to show only the man's back with no skin visible, while voicing over the clip with musings about the racial implications of the man since we now have a black president. The bimbo on film wondered if the rifle wasn't an implied threat to our first black president. The only problem was that the man carrying the rifle was black, something MSNBC knew perfectly well since they actually interviewed him. The fact that he was black didn't suit their narrative though, so the interview was never aired, and the only footage of him used disguised his race.

These are all examples of news media being more interested in the narrative they have to tell - whether its the idea of rampant sexual assault on college campuses, or racial animus. Facts are secondary to the narrative, and only utilized if they fit the narrative.

In the case of MSNBC, the narrative was blatant. They had the facts and chose to hide them.

In the case of Michael Brown, within 3 days of the incident, a Youtube video surfaced that completely debunked the "hands up" lie. It was footage shot in the minutes after the shooting. You can see police arriving at the scene, beginning to string up crime scene tape, and talking to the gathering crowd. In the midst of that, you can clearly hear a bystander recounting what he saw. He describes events that track with Wilson's account. He clearly states that Brown charged the officer, and even as Wilson fired the first few shots at Brown, Brown continued to charge. If any media outlet had investigated that footage, the "hands up" lie would never have persisted as long as it did.

CNN devoted not one, but two full segments to audio recorded on some guy's phone, even going so far as to have the FBI analyze it, because it contained the audio of the bullets being fired. The audio provided no probative value whatsoever, other than to confirm the number of shots fired, but CNN drooled over it just the same. Meanwhile, footage that made it clear that Wilson acted in self defense languished on Youtube, where you can still find it if you are curious, and was completely ignored by all media outlets. Hell, even FOX missed it as far as I've been able to determine. If they aired the footage, I missed it.

Again, the narrative drove the media coverage, not facts.

Lastly, the same was true of the Rolling Stone piece. RS was so excited to have the story, and to print a story that supported the hot topic of sexual assault on campus, that they never bothered to check their facts. Damn the facts, lets get the narrative out there!



Well, for one thing, the evidence made it clear that Wilson did nothing wrong. Furthermore, there is not one shred of evidence to indicate that Wilson is or has ever been guilty of racism. No excessive force complaints in his jacket, no complaints of racial profiling. He was clean as a whistle on the day he had his confrontation with Brown. So those are pretty good reasons to accept the DOJ's finding that Wilson was not guilty of any wrong doing.

As to the finding that the entire department was racist, well that is a pretty broad brush to paint with, and yes actually I have strong doubts about some of the facts relied upon to paint the entire department as racist. Debating the merits of the DOJ's findings has nothing to do with the topic of Rolling Stone's massive face plant though, so I'll be glad to join you on a new thread to discuss the DOJ's hunt for the rainbow unicorn of racism in the city of Ferguson.

Now then, my concerns about the Rolling Stone article are several.

First off, does anyone know why claims of sexual assault or rape on a college campus are handled differently from reports made anywhere else? This is something that baffles me. Anytime a college woman claims that she was sexually assaulted or raped, the University steps in to conduct its own investigation, and may or may not bring in the authorities. Why is this ok? What the hell does a college university have to do with investigating a crime? I read a comment once saying that there is a law that requires universities to handle sexual assault claims, but that makes no sense to me. Any of you legal experts know anything about this?

Secondly, if Rolling Stone truly repented the error of their ways, they would immediately release the name of the woman who made the claims. I do hope that the fraternity sues the shit out of Rolling Stone, but even more so, I hope they sue the ever loving shit out of this woman. Rape claims are often derided as it is, and women who are victimized often face an uphill battle where their every motive is questioned. Incidents like this only make it harder for genuine victims to seek justice. Whoever this woman is, she deserves to be strung up by her nipples and her Chicks Rule card revoked for life. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Eye-witness testimony is some of the least reliable testimony there is. We can't even literally see the world as it is. Our mind fills in the gaps for us.

http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_frase...ny?language=en

What type of business do you run, DSK? How many do you employ? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hey Donnie, thanks for asking. I run Nau's Pharmacy in Austin , Tx. We advertise that we are in Clarksville, but only idiots believe that little white lie. We have good hamburgers.

We run about 20-30 people on the payroll.

But the way you address the issue with the sexually harassed female is shit can the harasser as soon as you discover the was sexually harassed .. even if the harasser is your best friend (and probably more so!). Same with the reporters .... the day the story is questioned the reporter gets interrogated regarding what he did to verify the story and review his/her notes. Look at the layers of "supervising" personnel that such a story filters through before the "ink is dry."

This problem is systemic in the magazine. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, their response was very lacking, and they will have to pay for their systemic failures.

Hey Donnie, thanks for asking. I run Nau's Pharmacy in Austin , Tx. We advertise that we are in Clarksville, but only idiots believe that little white lie. We have good hamburgers.

We run about 20-30 people on the payroll. Originally Posted by DSK

Jeez, "DSK," you're a quick study! You just joined ECCIE but you're familiar with Nau's!

Strange... There really hasn't been much talk of Naus since you joined. Must be "channelling" someone else.

Ever been to Love Field? I hear there's a guy there who wants to kick your ass with his bare fists!

Ever spent time in an AMP? (Of course you have... So how do you feel about supporting white slavery?)

Ever lost a bet in the Poitical Forum but thought you were smart enough to reneg without detection?

YOU ARE SO BUSTED!!!!!! Why don't you just disable the other accounts and go on living as the simpleton known as DSK? But first, of course, be a man and take your 90 days... Or is it 6 months for repeat offenders?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jeez, "DSK," you're a quick study! You just joined ECCIE but you're familiar with Nau's!

Strange... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hardly. Now Shanmless, the new little boy got here about the same time and he's already part of your "we" bunch ... or is that "we-we"?