Rolling Stone retracts Campus Rape Story

[Darth Executor]

Finally got around to reading the original Rolling Stones story. I can't believe someone there seriously thought this garbage was fit to print. I'm surprised it didn't start with "dear penthouse". You couldn't come up with more convenient feminist rape porn if you tried.

[Mountain Man]

Update on the Lena Dunham story: her publisher, Random House, has revealed that "Barry" was a pseudonym even though this fact wasn't made clear in the book, and they have said that all future printings will be edited to reflect this. Some legal experts have suggested that this is an admission by Random House that they and Dunham knowingly published false details in a memoir in such a way that an innocent man was reasonably identified as Dunham's rapist, and that instead of getting themselves off the hook, "Barry One's" libel case just became a slamdunk.

Source: Washington Post

Random House’s statement [doesn't] help Identifiable Conservative Barry much. The memoir is still out there; many people have read it but haven’t seen the Random House statement; many more people will read it and not see the Random House statement. This is going to dog Identifiable Conservative Barry for years to come — for the simple reason that Dunham and Random House published a factual item (the statement that the alleged rapist was named Barry) that

1. they knew
2. was false
3. without stating, clearly and immediately (again, as they had done with regard to another man), that the name was made up.

For more on the libel implications of all this, see my earlier post, though of course now that Random House has admitted that Identifiable Conservative Barry actually didn’t do these things, the case becomes much easier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...y-named-barry/

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

Dunham has finally broken her silence on the matter and issued a response. It's not so much an apology as it is a "Sorry I got caught. Poor me."

She writes, "To be very clear, 'Barry' is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced."

And that's pretty much all she has to say about the matter. She doesn't bother to explain why she happened to choose the name "Barry", why she didn't identify it as a pseudonym in her book, or why she didn't immediately speak out when the wrong man was publicly identified as her attacker. The rest of her lengthy statement focuses on why she decided to put that chapter in the book and how people have responded.

[Mountain Man]

It turns out the Rolling Stone may not have even contacted the people that are quoted in the story and who are now saying that they are starting to doubt the rape even occurred.

Source: Washington Post

They said there are mounting inconsistencies with the original narrative in the magazine. The students also expressed suspicions about Jackie’s allegations from that night. They said the name she provided as that of her date did not match anyone at the university, and U-Va. officials confirmed to The Post that no one by that name has attended the school.

Also, photographs that were texted to one of the friends showing her date that night were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a junior at a university in another state, confirmed that the photographs were of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hasn’t been to Charlottesville for at least six years.

The friends said they were never contacted or interviewed by the pop culture magazine’s reporters or editors. Although vilified in the article as coldly indifferent to Jackie’s ordeal, the students said they cared deeply about their friend’s well-being and safety. [...] The Rolling Stone article also said that Randall declined to be interviewed, “citing his loyalty to his own frat.” He told The Post that he was never contacted by Rolling Stone and would have agreed to an interview.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...washingtonpost

© Copyright Original Source

This moves the story from simply a reporter who didn't fact-check to a reporter who is complicit in spreading false accusations.