If you’re a glutton for gory details, read the entire 13,000-word autopsy of the infamous Rolling Stone rape article done by a team from Columbia’s School of Journalism.
If you only want to understand the basics of what went wrong, just read the first paragraph. Here is how the Columbia team begins:
Either way, it is hard to fathom publisher Jann Wenner’s claim that nobody involved would be fired or disciplined.
“Last July 8, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a writer for Rolling Stone, telephoned Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erdely said she was searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show ‘what it’s like to be on campus now . . . where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture,’ according to Erdely’s notes of the conversation.”
Either way, it is hard to fathom publisher Jann Wenner’s claim that nobody involved would be fired or disciplined.
That’s all you need. The writer wasn’t looking for a story. She was looking for a case that confirmed the story she already had in her head.
Everything else is detail. All other mistakes, such as not challenging the claims of the purported victim “Jackie” or being honest with the fraternity she would accuse of hosting a gang rape, are the fruit of the poisoned tree.
To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post, click here.
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.