re: #176 dholmes32

Just a question: Does that include going and getting some sort of quote or denial from the person presumably identified as the rapist, even if the information isn’t published? “Some people” seem to think RS’s screwup included not going to the horse’s mouth.

I don’t really understand deliberately avoiding going to the accused, even if the reporter views it as a pro forma exercise with a denial being a virtual certainty. That’s how it’s done, Rolling Stone didn’t have to name names, but they absolutely should have contacted the other parties involved and reported their responses to the allegations.

For one thing investigating those responses then becomes part of the story, leading to further information and allowing RS to place the veracity of the accused under the microscope as well. Instead it we’re left with this nebulous shit show, where they’re now issuing a retraction based on unstated issues and inconsistencies they claim exist in accuser’s version of events. All RS has done is totally muddy up the waters, the exact opposite goal of responsible journalism.