(04-07-2015 01:53 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:There is no evidence in Erdely's materials or from interviews with her subjects that she invented facts; the problem was that she relied on what Jackie told her without vetting its accuracy.

Confirmation bias. When the story fits the narrative, you assume the accuracy.

Yes, but that is a far cry from what some here are claiming to have happened.

(04-07-2015 03:07 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:14 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Mind blowing that no one loses their job over that story.

Somebody will hopefully be losing a whole lot of cash though.

I hope that fraternity funds itself for a century AND demands a cover on The Rolling Stone..

Seriously people. This article was mostly written before she found Jackie. The author needed a story that presented the narrative that she wanted. This story made about as much sense as that one told by Dorian Johnson and "hands up don't shoot". Once you read the article, you start to ask questions...chief among them is that this author wrote a story based on the statements of ONE anonymous, so-called victim. A person that had not even filed a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Additionally, no where in the original story does the author say this is based entirely and solely on the account of Jackie. The author makes statements that are not attributable to Jackie and are false.

But, the left does this all the time. So-called journalists at Mother Jones create stories based on invented facts or rumor and then MSM outlets run it as fact. They always say, "according to Mother Jones...", but in reality they just want to be able use the unconfirmed slanderous material.

If you consider your organization a "journalistic" one, then you have a responsibility to fact check both the stories that originate with your organization, but those that you republish.

A jury is not going to like the freaks at Rolling Stone.