海角大神

Last fall, Rolling Stone聽published聽an explosive report about a woman who claimed that she had been raped at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia聽and, in the process, set off a firestorm that once again brought the issue of campus sexual assault to the forefront. The initial report, for example,聽led women to come forward with their own stories of sexual assault, and the University of Virginia itself responded by聽suspending the fraternity in question and all other fraternities聽from all activities pending an investigation. Very quickly, though, the tale told by 鈥淛ackie,鈥� the woman reportedly making the accusations, began to fall apart. The fraternity in question vehemently denied that the assault that she related ever took place, and follow-up reporting by other reporters uncovered facts that seemed to indicate that many of the details set forth in the story could not have happened the way that Jackie and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the reporter behind the story, related them. In December,聽The Washington Post聽published a report based on a detailed investigation that pretty much established that the assault that was described in the story never took place, and that even the friends of Jackie referenced in the original report had doubts about what their friend had been telling them for some time now. Within less than a month, the story that had appeared in Rolling Stone聽had been thoroughly discredited, and many observers were left wondering how such a basic breach of journalistic good practices and ethics could have happened in the first place.

Last night, the Columbia School of Journalism聽released the results of a months-long audit it performed of the original story, and neither Ms. Erdely or her editors come out looking good:

After the聽Post聽had effectively decimated the factual allegations of the original story, the conclusions of this report aren鈥檛 really all that surprising. Notwithstanding the allegations made by 鈥淛ackie鈥� in the article, there was simply no evidence that there had ever been an event at the fraternity in question during the time period that she claimed that the assault had occurred. Her story was also discredited by the fact that her description of the building that the attack allegedly occurred in, and her tale of how she finally managed to escape, given the fact that pretty much every single fact she related in this part of the story did not match up with the physical layout of the fraternity house, or apparently of any other building on campus. The friends to whom Jackie had related some details of this attack prior to ever talking to the reporter were incomplete and contradictory to the point where several of them doubted that an attack had ever happened at all, at least not on the campus of the University of Virginia. At one point, Jackie became alarmed when Erdely聽told her that she would be following up with others to confirm details of the story, including possibly the attacker or others affiliated with the fraternity where this attack allegedly took place. Instead of seeing this as a red flag, as she should have, Erdely apparently went along with the聽request not to contact others about the claims she was making.

Indeed, there鈥檚 nothing in the report that can be characterized as being the slightest bit redeeming for Erdely or聽Rolling Stone:

There鈥檚 really not much one can say beyond the report itself. Obviously, Erdely, her editors, and the entire magazine dropped the ball here in a most egregious, some would say outrageous manner. It鈥檚 still not clear why it happened, but one can imagine that it was likely the case that they became too sympathetic to the accuser that was the subject of their story to the point where they simply abandoned the need for journalists to approach a story like this with the kind of objectivity that requires them to, at least initially, be skeptical about what they鈥檙e being told. At the very least, steps should have been taken to attempt to verify the claims that Jackie was making regarding the attack itself. That investigation would have uncovered discrepancies in her story that should have led them to go back to her to try to figure out what the truth might actually be here. Doing so would have endangered the apparently, 鈥渇riendly鈥� relationship that the magazine in general, and Erdely in particular, had developed with Jackie but given the nature of the allegations she was making, it was a necessary step that any decent journalist has to take. Instead of doing all of that, though, Erdely in particular appears to have become an advocate for the subject of her story, and the piece read more like something that would be written by someone on a political mission than a journalist trying to get at the truth.

There鈥檚 no doubt that sexual assault on college campuses is a serious problem that deserves better attention that it often receives. Among other things, the manner in which universities often try to sweep these stories under the rug by conducting secret internal disciplinary investigations rather than referring the matter to the police as it should has the potential to harm both victims and those accused of such crimes. As with every other report of a crime, though, that does not mean that the allegations of a victim should be accepted as face value or that there should not be further investigation to attempt to verify the claims that they make. A criminal trial conducted after such an investigation would be an affront to justice, and the same goes for a journalist鈥檚 鈥渋nvestigation鈥� of such a story. The only good thing, perhaps, is that the original story never purported to release the identity of any of the alleged attackers, because one can only imagine 聽would have happened in that case. In any event, whether it was because she went into the story with an agenda from the start or because she let her sympathy for Jackie鈥檚 story get to her, Erdely has ended up harming actual victims of sexual assault by providing fodder for those who will claim that those allegations are often fabricated after the fact. In addition to every else that has resulted from this travesty, that fact alone makes what happened here even more egregious.

Going forward, there鈥檚 still much that could come from this disaster. Notwithstanding聽her apology,聽which notably does not include an apology for the unnamed 鈥渁ttack,鈥� Erdely remains employed at聽Rolling Stone,聽as do her editors. That alone seems to be rather egregious given the nature of what happened here, and the fact that the magazine seems to think that what basically amounts to a promise not to do this again is all that鈥檚 necessary. Instead, I would suggest that it will be a long time before anyone should take any reporting from聽Rolling Stone聽seriously again, especially if any of the players involved in this story are connected to that reporting. Additionally,聽Rolling Stone聽may find itself subjected to libel suits in the not too distant future, a possibility that Eugene Volokh explored in聽a post back in December聽and in聽a follow-up post last night.聽Beyond that, though, it strikes me that there are lessons for all journalists in what happened here. Whether you're a national reporter or just a local crime reporter, it鈥檚 crucial that you don鈥檛 simply take what you鈥檙e being told at face value. Follow up, investigate, test the premises of the story, and question your sources critically. If you fail to do that, you鈥檙e just going to end up embarrassing yourself and your profession.

Doug Mataconis appears on the Outside the Beltway blog at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/.