An apology from Rolling Stone

[statler & waldorf]

Your credibility is in the tank 75.

Just based on your quotes, credibility IS in the tank. YOURS. Apparently, you are blinded by your agenda.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

The missoulian has nothing to apologize for. They reported the news, and yes it was news. Most of the gripes against them was that they gave a brief recap of what precipitated the story, which is standard journalistic protocol in place to inform and provide background to first time readers.

Hey everybody....Gwens back.

 

[UMGriz75]

The entire encounter was nearly wordless, he said, other than a brief discussion of a condom - he said she asked if he had one and, when told no, she said, "That's OK" - and then the woman saying " 'Oh, you're bad' in kind of a giggly tone" when they switched to a different position.

Your credibility is in the tank 75.

No, you are the Rolling Stone serial fabricator here. The accuser was asked about this exchange. She did not deny it. The Missoulian did not make a note of that. Seems like an odd thing to leave out.

Get it?

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Bullock is too busy doing nothing.

If defending your states universities was as easy as slashing state funded infrastructure bills....Bullock would be leading the protest on Engstroms steps.

 

[GrizPony]

What a deluded fool you are getgrizzy. The Missoulian is dying because of its lack of journalistic ethics and the University is hurting because it encouraged a false narrative. It's good to see market forces at work and demand causing a reduction in the "supply" of bullshit that infects this town. Luckily for the biggest cancer, Gwen, she was able to shield herself from financial reality and hunker down in the bosom of academia where the real world can be minimized and denied.

 

[UMGriz75]

The missoulian has nothing to apologize for. They reported the news, and yes it was news. Most of the gripes against them was that they gave a brief recap of what precipitated the story, which is standard journalistic protocol in place to inform and provide background to first time readers.

Hey everybody....Gwens back.

It is odd to see anyone attempt to argue that the hack job given this case by the Missoulian was anything other than what it was.

"Standard journalistic protocol?" The poster has no idea, given that he/she is obviously attempting to support the proposition that JJ was supposed to be guilty, and he/she is still arguing that the Missoulian's biased coverage, designed to support that "narrative" verdict, was not just fatally flawed, it did the one thing "journalistic coverage" is not supposed to do: make the final result incomprehensible to those relying on the Missoulian for coverage.

 

[UMGriz75]

An example of the Missoulian's "reporting:"

For victims of date rape, the process on display during the Johnson trial was more important than the jury’s decision, said Cindy Weese, of the YWCA Missoula. The trial illustrated what victims confront when they choose to report those crimes.

“It’s going to be a grueling process, and their life is going to be exposed to everyone,” said Weese, YWCA director. “… No matter the verdict, (the case) is going to have a chilling effect on victims of sexual assault.”

http://missoulian.com/news/local/final-arguments-in-johnson-case-focus-on-accuser/article_aa0dd790-82b0-11e2-a66f-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note Florio's conclusion above: "for victims of date rape...." That's what happened here, and that's what she claimed.

Cindy Weese was nowhere identified by the "coverage" as having any expertise whatsoever on "date rape" the legal issues involved, or "what victims confront."

Nowhere, did Florio attempt to obtain a balancing "opinion" about the victims of false reports. Indeed, Weese was a convenient source of "quotes" that Florio often relied on to "just perfectly fit" her story narratives. It nearly appeared as though Florio wrote the stories, made the quotes, then asked Weese if she agreed.

Just as with Rolling Stone, they were "a bit too good to be true" especially coming from someone with no known expertise or credibility on the topic.

And, of course, note that the commentary is pure editorializing; the admission that the coverage is entirely about "the larger narrative." Florio could not, in a "news item," have stated the bias more clearly.

Later, of course, Weese gave Florio an award.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Bullock is too busy doing nothing.

If defending your states universities was as easy as slashing state funded infrastructure bills....Bullock would be leading the protest on Engstroms steps.

All he world have to do is make a very public speech and distance himself from Schweitzers nomination of Pat Williams to the BOR. In Montana it's not right or wrong, it's left or right, and he seems to be solidly left.

 

[getgrizzy]

The entire encounter was nearly wordless, he said, other than a brief discussion of a condom - he said she asked if he had one and, when told no, she said, "That's OK" - and then the woman saying " 'Oh, you're bad' in kind of a giggly tone" when they switched to a different position.

Your credibility is in the tank 75.

No, you are the Rolling Stone serial fabricator here. The accuser was asked about this exchange. She did not deny it. The Missoulian did not make a note of that. Seems like an odd thing to leave out.

Get it?

So you just left those details out the first time but the gigantic fact is that the missoulian (and Florio) DID run almost verbatim what you said they didn't run. Quit changing your story and face reality. You're trying to spin the unspinable. Haha! Yeah, I get it. I get it that you don't really care about anything but winning. I get it that if JJ was on the track team instead of football you wouldn't spend a minute on this topic.

 

[UMGriz75]

Get it?

So you just left those details out the first time but the gigantic fact is that the missoulian (and Florio) DID run almost verbatim what you said they didn't run. Quit changing your story and face reality. You're trying to spin the unspinable. Haha! Yeah, I get it. I get it that you don't really care about anything but winning. I get it that if JJ was on the track team instead of football you wouldn't spend a minute on this topic.

No, it "makes a difference" who admits to it. When the fabulist admits that the conversation is accurate, it is no longer "he said, she said."

Get that, either?

 

[getgrizzy]

Get it?

So you just left those details out the first time but the gigantic fact is that the missoulian (and Florio) DID run almost verbatim what you said they didn't run. Quit changing your story and face reality. You're trying to spin the unspinable. Haha! Yeah, I get it. I get it that you don't really care about anything but winning. I get it that if JJ was on the track team instead of football you wouldn't spend a minute on this topic.

No, it "makes a difference" who admits to it. When the fabulist admits that the conversation is accurate, it is no longer "he said, she said."

Get that, either?

Actually that lends credibility to her story. If she's lying, then why tell the truth about that? That exchange doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. She could've been the one who initiated sex then changed her mind. He could've been inside her, but if she says no he needs to stop. Get it?

 

[UMGriz75]

Actually that lends credibility to her story. If she's lying, then why tell the truth about that? That exchange doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. She could've been the one who initiated sex then changed her mind. He could've been inside her, but if she says no he needs to stop. Get it?

You are beginning to sound like Sabrina Erdeley.

The Jury obviously was able to consider your arguments. You lost. The "people that mattered" disagreed with you, and did so in near record time, and yet you are still arguing a failed case. It's pathetic. Get it?

The fascinating thing about the Rolling Stone debacle is that there are still people here, just as there, who continue to argue "The Narrative" and pretend that, in specific instances, the roles of predator and victim were not only reversed but that great harm was done to innocent people, and yet people like "get grizzly" are so invested in the political outcome, they refuse to recognize what happened, are in complete denial, or that they were dumb enough to have bought into it in the first place.

 

[montanaguy]

Unforunately, most guys - and particularly younger guys- do not recognize all the 'red flags' in a relationship until it is too late and they have either married the narcissist/borderline or gotten them pregnant or ended up in jail with false accusations of rape/domestic violence/abuse.

Thes are a great resource for either educational purposes or for the guy who is wondering what the hell is going on in his life:

http://shrink4men.com/index/

Also http://www.avoiceformen.com/

 

[getgrizzy]

Actually that lends credibility to her story. If she's lying, then why tell the truth about that? That exchange doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. She could've been the one who initiated sex then changed her mind. He could've been inside her, but if she says no he needs to stop. Get it?

You are beginning to sound like Sabrina Erdeley.

The Jury obviously was able to consider your arguments. You lost. The "people that mattered" disagreed with you, and did so in near record time, and yet you are still arguing a failed case. It's pathetic. Get it?

The fascinating thing about the Rolling Stone debacle is that there are still people here, just as there, who continue to argue "The Narrative" and pretend that, in specific instances, the roles of predator and victim were not only reversed but that great harm was done to innocent people, and yet people like "get grizzly" are so invested in the political outcome, they refuse to recognize what happened, are in complete denial, or that they were dumb enough to have bought into it in the first place.

I couldn't possibly lose since I never took a side in this case and therefore I'm not arguing a failed case. I've stated this many times.

I'm only interested because some people think a verdict of not guilty is proof that something didn't happen. No one proved this didn't happen not that they had to, but a lot of people mistakenly think it was proven and that this case falls into the category of false accusation.

 

[montanaguy]

Rolling Stone may have "apologized" for this mess, but the reporter who created it issued a bizarre statement that apologized to most everyone except those who were most damaged -- the members of the fraternity she falsely accused of rape.

And Rolling Stone isn't firing -- much less disciplining -- any of the editors or fact-checkers connected to the story. In fact, the publisher says the reporter will continue writing for the magazine! Talk about chutzpah!

Well, the news today is that the fraternity is suing the magazine, so perhaps it won't be around much longer anyway, and this will all be a moot issue.

One of the interesting things to see will be whether this episode has any impact on sales of Krakauer's "Missoula." I think it makes people a lot more skeptical about the claim that there's a "plague of rapes on college campuses," which is advertised as a theme of the book. The CJR report also said the folks at Rolling Stone embraced that narrative, and didn't bother to check out whether the facts backed it up at the U of Va.

Another interesting forum debate:

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?15675-UVA-Rape-Story-Full-Retract-Apologies-to-men-NO

 

[kemajic]

Bullock is too busy doing nothing.

And the Missoulian has been one of his staunchest supporters.

 

[tampa_griz]

I couldn't possibly lose since I never took a side in this case and therefore I'm not arguing a failed case. I've stated this many times.

I'm only interested because some people think a verdict of not guilty is proof that something didn't happen. No one proved this didn't happen not that they had to, but a lot of people mistakenly think it was proven and that this case falls into the category of false accusation.

How exactly would someone prove they didn't commit a particular action? Could you prove you've never sexually assaulted someone?

 

[UMGriz75]

I couldn't possibly lose since I never took a side in this case and therefore I'm not arguing a failed case. I've stated this many times.

I'm only interested because some people think a verdict of not guilty is proof that something didn't happen. No one proved this didn't happen not that they had to, but a lot of people mistakenly think it was proven and that this case falls into the category of false accusation.

How exactly would someone prove they didn't commit a particular action? Could you prove you've never sexually assaulted someone?

He thinks the Missoulian did a fine job in the same fashion as people are now arguing that the Rolling Stone article, even though false, was "really" true. He wants to believe anything.

 

[getgrizzy]

I couldn't possibly lose since I never took a side in this case and therefore I'm not arguing a failed case. I've stated this many times.

I'm only interested because some people think a verdict of not guilty is proof that something didn't happen. No one proved this didn't happen not that they had to, but a lot of people mistakenly think it was proven and that this case falls into the category of false accusation.

How exactly would someone prove they didn't commit a particular action? Could you prove you've never sexually assaulted someone?

By proving they weren't there. Like if a video camera shows they're in Seattle at the time their accuser says they're in Missoula.

That was tough. Any other "zingers" you'd like to throw at me?

 

[tampa_griz]

I couldn't possibly lose since I never took a side in this case and therefore I'm not arguing a failed case. I've stated this many times.

I'm only interested because some people think a verdict of not guilty is proof that something didn't happen. No one proved this didn't happen not that they had to, but a lot of people mistakenly think it was proven and that this case falls into the category of false accusation.

How exactly would someone prove they didn't commit a particular action? Could you prove you've never sexually assaulted someone?

By proving they weren't there. Like if a video camera shows they're in Seattle at the time their accuser says they're in Missoula.

That was tough. Any other "zingers" you'd like to throw at me?

What if there's no video tape? Do you have video of every moment of your life that proves you've never committed sexual assault? Or that you've never tried heroin? In the absence of video proof covering your entire existence, is it safe to assume that you can't prove you've never done those things?