re: #193 goddamnedfrank

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.

Do we go to burglars and bank robbers to get their opinion? Or is rape somehow different, in that we must get an opinion from the accused person, particularly when the person is not named?

What makes this story problematic is that the person at the center of the story insisted on anonymity (and with good reason, IMHO). If RS wasn’t able to handle the anonymity aspect, then maybe RS shouldn’t have gone with the story. I have to say the story didn’t change my opinion of fraternities, but only confirmed the really low opinion I have had of them since before the first day of school in the Fall 1980 semester at UT-Austin.