Rolling Stone just said that because of discrepancies in their story they no longer trust the rape victim. As the parent of a daughter and a faculty member who has heard a number of similar stories (it can't be mass delusion over twenty years!) I demand to know what those discrepancies are. This is going to have a chilling effect on the report of campus rape. Rolling Stone has a very high obligation to report those discrepancies and explain why they don't trust the story. This is not just a journalism story, this is a societal story - and the first time I have seen movement on the rape culture that allegedly (it could be mass hysteria) and many elite fraternities. Also, what about the author, does she also mistrust her subject now?
I am hoping different sites can put pressure on Rolling Stone to explain themselves. If it really was serious discrepancies there is nothing to do, but it has put back the discussion on sexual violence years maybe. If Rolling Stone was intimidate into doing this there are deeper problems with our traditional media than even I realized.
12:12 PM PT: I just realized this. RS interviewed the friends who met Jackie on campus right after the rape. Here is what had to have happened if Jackie was lying. She ripped her own clothes, made up a story about a fraternity she never entered and a guy she never met, put herself into a hysterical state, and then called her friends to meet her so she could lie to them about all of this. Do people really think this happened?
12:28 PM PT: Washington Post has struck from its story the fact that the accused attacker never met the victim - Jackie. I am sensing this is all about the explode in ways none of use can fathom.
12:41 PM PT: I still think what is known mostly backs up the victims story and WAPO may have more questions to answer than RS but commenter coquiero offer a really critical reminder that we should remember from Mother Jones what is important here
http://www.motherjones.com/...