Tags

,

Just one of many...

Just one of many…

You couldn’t dream up self-inflicted delusion, stupidity and irony like this. From The Washington Examiner’s Media furious with Rolling Stone’s mishandling of UVA rape story.

File under: Who Coulda thunk it?

Rolling Stone’s abrupt disavowal Friday of its November bombshell article, ‘A Rape on Campus’ at the University of Virginia, is drawing outrage from journalists and rape activists alike.

Background:

Published Nov. 19, the article was written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely and claimed that a group of UVA students brutally gang-raped a student, ‘Jackie,’ at a party hosted by one of the university’s many fraternities. The article also alleged that the school worked hard to sweep the incident — and others like it — under the rug.

The article created a firestorm, but also prompted intense scrutiny, especially by the Washington Post and the Federalist. Multiple inconsistencies were exposed, leaving Rolling State no choice.

For example, records indicate that there was no party on the night the assault allegedly occurred at the fraternity house.

Details, details, and Rolling Stone was oh-so-sensitive to the needs of the “victim.” The Rolling Stone didn’t bother to explain why they didn’t go to the police with their information of multiple felonies:

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,’ Rolling Stone Managing Editor Will Dana wrote, referring to the supposed victim of a campus sexual assault.

Oh, how things change when the unfortunate facts intrude on the preferred leftist narrative:

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,’ he added.

The comments that follow, particularly from leftist media outlets–pretty much all of them–are as hilarious as they are pathetic:

Rape on college campuses remains a huge problem,’ the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein tweeted. ‘Tragedy of the story is it will distract from that/cast doubt on future incidents.’

Similarly, Breitbart News’ Mary Chastain called it ‘a complete disgrace to actual rape victims.’ And the Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay said ‘Rolling Stone is really screwing over other victims who will now face even greater skepticism in reporting campus rape.’

‘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 [the story], I was dead f**king wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize,’ Jezebel’s Anna Merlan wrote.

Yes Anna, you f**king were. Perhaps you can learn something from that? She continues:

It means that my conviction that [Rolling Stone] had fact-checked [the] story in ways that were not visible to the public was also wrong. It’s bad, bad, bad all around,’ she added.

Hmmm. Could the problem have been that Rolling Stone didn’t reveal its fact-checking to the public because there was no fact checking?

Welp. Turns out many of us, myself included, were wrong to trust the story,’ Slate’s Jamelle Bouie tweeted.

Really now, gentle readers, who in the media could have possibly imagined that anyone in the media would favor an unsupportable and highly improbable leftist narrative rather than actually doing–you know–journalism, which used to consist of being certain of one’s facts, confirming stories with multiple, independent sources, and actually giving a rat’s posterior about the truth prior to publishing a story? Why, this one just caught all those noble media folk totally by surprise. It’s not really their fault, is it?

And Rolling Stone, a rag that has featured Barack Obama on its cover (Google “Obama rolling stone covers” if you’ve a strong stomach), so often and photographed so lovingly as to constitute politician porn–let’s not bother to talk about its drooling, man-crush coverage of Mr. Obama in particular and left wing ideology in general–was assumed by the rest of the media to be a paragon of journalistic rectitude and unswerving accuracy? Really?

The police will not automatically believe that every woman crying “rape” is a liar–they’re compelled to live by fact and the truth–but there is compelling reason to believe that where the media are concerned, the truth is not in them.