Community Chat

[SnowPink]

On 4/6/2015 SydneyH said:

On 4/6/2015 SnowPink said:

Wasn't it Rolling Stone that made Tsarnaev (the man who blew off Americans limbs and killed a little boy) into some sexy rock star?

The photo on the cover was taken by someone else, some stores in New England removed from magazine from their inventory. I no longer shop in those stores.

Why?

[SydneyH]

On 4/6/2015 SnowPink said:

Why?

I prefer to make my decisions about what to read, not allow political correctness to run amok. The article in question was fairly written imo. That's not to say though RS should not have to answer for this last fiasco though.

[Melania]

On 4/6/2015 Lila Belle said:

RCG

""Jackie"" and thousands like her have been done a grave injustice.

Exactly!! You can bet if it wasn't her it was so many others on so many campuses across the country. Those of you who have daughters in or going off to college should be afraid.

This if anything brought to light the power fraternities and sororities have on campuses. The ""code"" if you will is well known.

[gardenman]

It shouldn't have any impact on any future real rape victims. Real victims should be no less willing to come forward against their accusers as long as the charges are real. They should be believed every bit as much as they would have been before this publication. Police are well aware that there are many false rape claims made so one more won't affect the outcome of legitimate rape cases. Real rape victims should still come forward and take down the abusers.

In this case I suspect those overseeing the publication of the story assumed that no woman would lie about such an event and therefore believed Jackie when there were glaring issues with her story. Their personal beliefs led them to overlook the journalistic issues. What they apparently didn't understand is that a number of studies have shown that forty percent or more of rape claims are later proven false. I suspect they weren't aware of that statistic and gave the alleged victim more credibility than she deserved. We've seen enough high profile false rape accusations made in recent years (Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse players, McMartin daycare, and more) that a credible journalist should have had some skepticism, but personal biases will often outweigh sensible thinking.

[millieshops]

They should sue and they should win. Rolling Stone's editorial staff didn't use the judgment of a child.

Beyond that, the reporter and "Jackie" - if there's really a Jackie - should know they had set back the rape issue on campuses 40 or more years. I give the greater shame to the reporter - she's supposedly the professional and I can't see anything professional about the way she put her story together.

[Qwackertoo]

On 4/6/2015 gardenman said:

It shouldn't have any impact on any future real rape victims. Real victims should be no less willing to come forward against their accusers as long as the charges are real. They should be believed every bit as much as they would have been before this publication. Police are well aware that there are many false rape claims made so one more won't affect the outcome of legitimate rape cases. Real rape victims should still come forward and take down the abusers.

In this case I suspect those overseeing the publication of the story assumed that no woman would lie about such an event and therefore believed Jackie when there were glaring issues with her story. Their personal beliefs led them to overlook the journalistic issues. What they apparently didn't understand is that a number of studies have shown that forty percent or more of rape claims are later proven false. I suspect they weren't aware of that statistic and gave the alleged victim more credibility than she deserved. We've seen enough high profile false rape accusations made in recent years (Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse players, McMartin daycare, and more) that a credible journalist should have had some skepticism, but personal biases will often outweigh sensible thinking.

Also the FSU case with the "star quarterback" and National Championship on the line.

Her reputation and choices were also questioned.

While I don't want to see an innocent falsely accused, I also don't want to see a victim put on trial, real trial or public "media" trial either.

Excessive drinking, by all, the girls and the guys, drugs all play a part in life changing outcomes. The Vanderbilt case was a horrible example of that. The guys were animals and barbaric in the treatment of that poor girl.

That said, as the Mother of a 3rd year college daughter and soon to be 1st year college aged son . . . I am THRILLED neither one wants anything to do with fraternities or sororities and "paying to have friends". With friends like those, in too many cases, who needs enemies. T-R-O-U-B-L-E. I'm sure there are many happy endings and life long memories of these college "societies" but I'm glad my kids aren't interested. The amounts you have to pledge along with tuition, books, room & board is a bit more than I'm willing to put out there, all things considered.

[SydneyH]

On 4/6/2015 millieshops said:

They should sue and they should win. Rolling Stone's editorial staff didn't use the judgment of a child.

Beyond that, the reporter and "Jackie" - if there's really a Jackie - should know they had set back the rape issue on campuses 40 or more years. I give the greater shame to the reporter - she's supposedly the professional and I can't see anything professional about the way she put her story together.

Jackie isn't a child imo and I find it really hard to believe that whatever trauma she may have suffered that night kept her from telling a somewhat truthful account of that evening.

[terrier3]

On 4/6/2015 millieshops said:

They should sue and they should win. Rolling Stone's editorial staff didn't use the judgment of a child.

Beyond that, the reporter and "Jackie" - if there's really a Jackie - should know they had set back the rape issue on campuses 40 or more years. I give the greater shame to the reporter - she's supposedly the professional and I can't see anything professional about the way she put her story together.

How does this set back anything?

It's one person and one story.

Every case is unique.

I support the fight to INSIST that all assaults be reported and investigated by police - NOT college security forces.

[millieshops]

On 4/6/2015 terrier3 said:

On 4/6/2015 millieshops said:

They should sue and they should win. Rolling Stone's editorial staff didn't use the judgment of a child.

Beyond that, the reporter and "Jackie" - if there's really a Jackie - should know they had set back the rape issue on campuses 40 or more years. I give the greater shame to the reporter - she's supposedly the professional and I can't see anything professional about the way she put her story together.

How does this set back anything?

It's one person and one story.

Every case is unique.

I support the fight to INSIST that all assaults be reported and investigated by police - NOT college security forces.

As I'm reading your response, I'm hearing a news report telling of the issue of how the retraction by Rolling Stone makes many say "Oh, she wanted it." It's already hard for a woman reporting rape - victims don't need sensationalized stories like this one in the national press any more than the young men whose lives were also changed by the false accusations got fair treatment.

It happens over and over - and I'm hearing the same responses I've heard since I was in
college decades ago. Sad that a publication of the stature of Rolling Stone can be fooled so easily.

And, yes, assaults should be police investigated, but that's absolutely no guarantee of fair treatment either. In this case, there was no police report = supposedly because the young woman was too traumatized to report the attack although now we have no idea what might have been in such a report.

[KellyS]

I don't generally like court action, but I'm glad they're suing in this case. Why no heads rolled at RS is a mystery...or the way things are in news and journalism today, maybe not.