(12-05-2014 02:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Thank you. You said everything I would've also said. False reports are at most 8% of the time, yet get the most recognition by the press.

We must watch different news outlets because I rarely hear about false reports and reguarly hear about rapes. Also, 8% false is actually quite high considering the severity of the crime.

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Not only that, but Rolling Stone's response reads like 'we took her story at face value and didn't check and it's her fault'. It seems quite possible something did happen to her and she's possibly deeply damaged as a result, and not only did RS hurt her by not checking, they're now casting her aside in an attempt to rescue themselves and the narrative. It's ugly in addition to being terrible journalism.

(12-05-2014 02:36 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Nowhere in this did you mention how the reputations of the men who might have done nothing were ruined in the process of making this article. Everyone always seems so quick to say "this is bad for actual victims in the future" when people's lives and reputations were totally ruined already by this through no fault of their own.

Now, something might have happened and a rape may have occurred here, but we don't know. I don't understand how rape and sexual assault seem to be the only crimes where people assume guilt before innocence. Everyone wants to judge so quickly without the facts and even if these stories end up being fabrications or outright lies, nobody seems to care and inncoent men's reputations, finances and occasionally futures are ruined on the whims of one person's word.

Agree with this too and have discussed this issue with others in the past. Should have included it in my original post.

I definitely agree that false allegations of rape should be punished which as we are both saying, we are not sure if allegations are true or false in this case since nobody but a certain few people know the facts and few have tried to determine what the real truth is. While I don't think the article named specific people's names, the fraternity, its members and UVA have had their reputations ruined. May be deserved but facts need to be found out before we know where fault lies in this case

(12-05-2014 02:52 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:36 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Nowhere in this did you mention how the reputations of the men who might have done nothing were ruined in the process of making this article. Everyone always seems so quick to say "this is bad for actual victims in the future" when people's lives and reputations were totally ruined already by this through no fault of their own.

Now, something might have happened and a rape may have occurred here, but we don't know. I don't understand how rape and sexual assault seem to be the only crimes where people assume guilt before innocence. Everyone wants to judge so quickly without the facts and even if these stories end up being fabrications or outright lies, nobody seems to care and inncoent men's reputations, finances and occasionally futures are ruined on the whims of one person's word.

Agree with this too and have discussed this issue with others in the past. Should have included it in my original post.

I definitely agree that false allegations of rape should be punished which as we are both saying, we are not sure if allegations are true or false in this case since nobody but a certain few people know the facts and few have tried to determine what the real truth is. While I don't think the article named specific people's names, the fraternity, its members and UVA have had their reputations ruined. May be deserved but facts need to be found out before we know where fault lies in this case

I'm all about UVA getting knocked down a peg, but this way was a total crock. Rolling Stone lost a lot of credibility and probably hurt this girl's cause if any charges are brought up in a future trial.

It's hard to punish false allegations though, and it's not a topic anybody in power wants to push.

(12-05-2014 02:41 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Thank you. You said everything I would've also said. False reports are at most 8% of the time, yet get the most recognition by the press.

We must watch different news outlets because I rarely hear about false reports and reguarly hear about rapes. Also, 8% false is actually quite high considering the severity of the crime.

Different Studies have shown it ranging from 2-8%. I agree that that is still too high.
I never hear about sexual assault on the news compared to other crimes. Part of that is the more private nature of it and being under reported.
It seems like when it is false, the media makes sure to let it be known.

(12-05-2014 03:14 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:41 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Thank you. You said everything I would've also said. False reports are at most 8% of the time, yet get the most recognition by the press.

We must watch different news outlets because I rarely hear about false reports and reguarly hear about rapes. Also, 8% false is actually quite high considering the severity of the crime.

Different Studies have shown it ranging from 2-8%. I agree that that is still too high.
I never hear about sexual assault on the news compared to other crimes. Part of that is the more private nature of it and being under reported.
It seems like when it is false, the media makes sure to let it be known.

Like when? I'm not being smart, I really can't think of any that didn't involve a celebrity or athlete.

Local media will report on rapes frequently though (I hear about them all the time in local Baltimore news), rapes in general rarely get mass media attention, but JMU sure got raked through the coals a few months ago for a story with even flimsier evidence that wasn't even rape.

(12-05-2014 03:14 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:41 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Thank you. You said everything I would've also said. False reports are at most 8% of the time, yet get the most recognition by the press.

We must watch different news outlets because I rarely hear about false reports and reguarly hear about rapes. Also, 8% false is actually quite high considering the severity of the crime.

Different Studies have shown it ranging from 2-8%. I agree that that is still too high.
I never hear about sexual assault on the news compared to other crimes. Part of that is the more private nature of it and being under reported.
It seems like when it is false, the media makes sure to let it be known.

Maybe because the media are not privy to information about rapes and false reports. Unless the victim speaks or the accuser is charged ( grand jury or high profile) , this information is usually not accessed.

Well, well, well...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi.../19954293/

Looks like the Duke Lacrosse case all over again.

(12-05-2014 02:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 02:07 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  She may have been raped (and if she was, I hope the men get punished severely because it is a heinous crime) but what Rolling Stone did was a complete disservice to those women who have been raped and will make it that much tougher for them to come forward and/or be believed.

Journalists have a huge responsibly to print the truth (or at least to verify as much as possible before printing what they do) and Rolling Stone has just put its own credibility and the credibility of those of who are raped in the future on the line because everyone will think of this case and the Duke LAX case and ask if victims are telling the truth. It may still come out that she was raped but the "retraction" (not quite a retraction but an apology for not doing a thorough job) of this story will make it that much tougher for those who are raped to come forward.

Thank you. You said everything I would've also said. False reports are at most 8% of the time, yet get the most recognition by the press.

Not sure where you got that number, and I have no real reason to doubt it, but there are lots of studies that put that number much, much higher than 8%. I have no idea what the right number is, but I don't think anyone can be sure it's "at most" 8%.

Link

The other (unasked) question is how many of the women who file false reports are ultimately prosecuted themselves?

U-Va. Phi Psi members speak about impact of discredited gang rape allegations

".....On Monday, the first day of the spring semester, Charlottesville police announced that an investigation found no basis to believe that an attack occurred at the fraternity....."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/educ...story.html

Sucks what happened to these guys. I wonder if they would have grounds for a lawsuit against Rolling Stone?

Basically the result of this was:
-Rolling Stone has again displayed itself to be nothing more than a tabloid rag.
-All the people who rushed to judgement against the frat look like idiots.
-UVA looks like idiots for suspending functions of the entire Greek system over what turned out to be a fabricated story from a tabloid rag. Just like in the Duke lacrosse case it was suspend and cast aspersions 1st, investigate and wait for the facts to come out later.
-Whole episode is a real disservice to women who actually are sexually assaulted.

That horrible journalism and potentially-false allegations have led to fraternities at UVa having to accept increased scrutiny and signed pledges of compliance sets a TERRIBLE precedent. Crimes should be prosecuted, always, but such a series of events will only encourage the next person who wants to make false allegations to "prove a point" or to bring attention to some perceived social injustice.

Fraternities are being forced to take restrictive action for something that has yet to proven. It is unfair, and I wish one of them had the cojones to sue Rolling Stone and UVa in response.