The Rolling Stone article reported a University of Virginia student’s alleged gang rape that occurred at a fraternity. Courtesy of Wikimedia
By Delaney Benison
After a series of examinations, the Columbia University School of Journalism has released a report on their findings from investigating the Rolling Stone article covering a UVA fraternity gang rape. Rolling Stone has already retracted the article.
“A Rape on Campus,” published Nov. 19, 2014, by Sabrina Erdely, was about a student, “Jackie,” attending a party at a UVA fraternity.
Her claims were that she was brutally gang raped by eight male students, one of whom she knew and who was her date that night.
This article aimed to share the story of a rape victim, but also to call attention to UVA’s history of indifference towards sexual assaults on campus.
According to Rolling Stone, during the time of Erdely’s reporting she, and all the staff who were reporting, did not feel Jackie acted in any way that would make them question her story. It became clear that Jackie was the only person to whom Erdely ever spoke about the story.
There were no witnesses or secondary accounts during the reporting or in the story. As a result, over the following months it became clear that there were discrepancies in the article.
Rolling Stone commissioned the Columbia School of Journalism to investigate the story as an attempt to clear up the controversy.
The report by Sheila Coronel, Steve Coll and Derek Kravitz relays the message that the Rolling Stone staff did not practice responsible journalism since they believed Jackie to be a credible source.
It was believed that Erdely did not ask more pressing questions due to the sensitive subject matter and Jackie’s erratic behavior.
Erdely also chose not to to contact Jackie’s friends, all three of whom Jackie said she had met with and spoken to after the attack. Jackie’s friends were contacted by the Columbia School of Journalism and said that they would have spoken to Rolling Stone if they had been called.
The university’s investigation and the criminal investigation both found that there was no evidence to back up this story. In a CNN report, Brian Stelter said the story was a “systemic failure.” He believed everyone involved with the article made mistakes leading to the ultimate retraction of the story last week.
Professor Lewis Freeman, a professor in the Communication and Media Studies department weighed in on the controversy.
When asked what he thought would be the best approach when it comes to reporting sensitive topics such as sexual assault.Freeman said, “First, a reporter must gather ‘facts,’ some of which might be disputed. Reporters must be sensitive to the perspectives and emotions of sources, regardless of the topic.”
I also asked whether he believed asking the Columbia School of Journalism to investigate the reporting was the best way to gain back some credibility.
He said, “Rolling Stone’s credibility is damaged. The results of the investigation further undermined Rolling Stone’s credibility. However, accepting the results of the investigation will help in the long run.”
Rolling Stone’s reputation and credibility will be severely brought into question from now on, but due to the Columbia School of Journalism report and the idea of full transparency, over time they may be able to get it back.
The bigger problem is how this will affect future stories. Oftentimes, stories based on false accusations result in many assault victims’ stories going unheard.
It could be thought that this story could — or was intended to — raise awareness for victims of sexual assault, but most likely it will have a negative effect. The article could lead people to be more skeptical of those who report attacks.
It is essential in these cases to have responsible journalism and do the basics, such as second sourcing and verifying the source and the story. It is thought that this a universally known policy that does not need to even be stated.
This is particularly difficult in cases in which there are lawsuits and investigations going on. Reporters need to be sensitive, yet thorough enough to make sure that their story is 100 percent accurate before going to print.
As for Rolling Stone, management has not fired anyone who worked on the piece, possibly out of loyalty to its writers.
It is speculated that Sabrina Erdely will write for the magazine again. This could be even more damaging to the magazine as this looks like they are not taking every step that they could possibly take to make amends for writing a false story.
However, Rolling Stone was at least able to accomplish full disclosure, and going forward they will have to be excessive in checking the contents of their stories and the practices of their writers.
