Community Chat

[Isobel Archer]

On 4/9/2015 terrier3 said:

On 4/9/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

In today's news, the plot thickens.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/how-deep-is-this-education-officials-involvement-in-the-rolling-st...

The Daily Caller is no one's idea of a news site.

So you are saying that this letter https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7UAuEqoequKWEMyV1JlUFRqdjA/view?pli=1

is a fake and did NOT appear in the Columbia Journalism's Report.

And the youtube video of the meeting after which he was misquoted and than characterized by Lhamon as irresponsible is also a fake?

Can you cite your evidence for that?

[RainCityGirl]

So what some of you are claiming is that Rolling Stone deliberately perpetrated a hoax and published it??? WHAT would be their motives for doing so? They have plenty of stories to cover. They don't need to make something up knowing full well the truth would come out. Could it be they actually thought they had a legitimate story having been covered elsewhere. They got sloppy in fact checking possibly because it had hit so many parts of the media prior to their article. Shame on them for not fact checking more carefully. However, in no way do I think they chose to bring all this down on their heads by deliberately publishing some thing they knew to be untrue.

[Isobel Archer]

On 4/9/2015 RainCityGirl said:

So what some of you are claiming is that Rolling Stone deliberately perpetrated a hoax and published it??? WHAT would be their motives for doing so? They have plenty of stories to cover. They don't need to make something up knowing full well the truth would come out. Could it be they actually thought they had a legitimate story having been covered elsewhere. They got sloppy in fact checking possibly because it had hit so many parts of the media prior to their article. Shame on them for not fact checking more carefully. However, in no way do I think they chose to bring all this down on their heads by deliberately publishing some thing they knew to be untrue.

I'm sorry - I think I missed something.

The Jackie story was published in many other media venues prior to Rolling Stone???

What were they?

[scotttie]

On 4/9/2015 Isobel Archer said:

On 4/9/2015 RainCityGirl said:

So what some of you are claiming is that Rolling Stone deliberately perpetrated a hoax and published it??? WHAT would be their motives for doing so? They have plenty of stories to cover. They don't need to make something up knowing full well the truth would come out. Could it be they actually thought they had a legitimate story having been covered elsewhere. They got sloppy in fact checking possibly because it had hit so many parts of the media prior to their article. Shame on them for not fact checking more carefully. However, in no way do I think they chose to bring all this down on their heads by deliberately publishing some thing they knew to be untrue.

I'm sorry - I think I missed something.

The Jackie story was published in many other media venues prior to Rolling Stone???

What were they?

Also, who said it was deliberate? It's obvious they had a template in mind and they found someone to fulfill it...unfortunately for them and for the school and the fraternity it was a bogus claim. This is a recurring problem in journalism.

[melfie]

On 4/9/2015 RainCityGirl said:

So what some of you are claiming is that Rolling Stone deliberately perpetrated a hoax and published it??? WHAT would be their motives for doing so? They have plenty of stories to cover. They don't need to make something up knowing full well the truth would come out. Could it be they actually thought they had a legitimate story having been covered elsewhere. They got sloppy in fact checking possibly because it had hit so many parts of the media prior to their article. Shame on them for not fact checking more carefully. However, in no way do I think they chose to bring all this down on their heads by deliberately publishing some thing they knew to be untrue.

NO

[Irshgrl31201]

On 4/9/2015 RainCityGirl said:

So what some of you are claiming is that Rolling Stone deliberately perpetrated a hoax and published it??? WHAT would be their motives for doing so? They have plenty of stories to cover. They don't need to make something up knowing full well the truth would come out. Could it be they actually thought they had a legitimate story having been covered elsewhere. They got sloppy in fact checking possibly because it had hit so many parts of the media prior to their article. Shame on them for not fact checking more carefully. However, in no way do I think they chose to bring all this down on their heads by deliberately publishing some thing they knew to be untrue.

I don't think it was deliberate but most definitely very negligent. They attributed quotes to her friends that never said that and they didn't even ask her friends if this was said, they completely trusted her word for most everything saying she had an air of believability. They checked up on none of the people she named as her attackers and if they had they would have found out they weren't even in the classes she said she shared with them. There were many many discrepancies in her story where if they had check on just a few they would have seen a pattern. It wasn't just her, they have a staff of fact checkers at RS and I could see a couple of discrepancies falling through the cracks but so much did. This is not journalism. This is relaying a story as the truth which millions will read and dozens and dozens of news agencies related as fact. Many people still believe this as truth besides the police not finding a shred of evidence. I can't think of why any credible journalist would be so negligent.