-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
An apology from Rolling Stone
- Thread starter BelierPeaux
- Start date
If I didn't I couldn't win a case in which I make the claim of false accusation. In other words the people claiming this is a false accusation need to be able to prove it. It could be a false accusation, but until Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is provided we don't KNOW that. I've been absolutely consistent on that throughout in case you haven't been following along.tampa_griz said:
I've never said the accuser proved her case against JJ.
tampa_griz
Well-known member
getgrizzy said:
Really? Is getgrizzy a rapist? Well, he can't provide video detailing every moment of his existence showing us that he isn't. So where does that leave us? Can you provide video proof you weren't at the accuser's house on the night the alleged assault occurred? If no, should we be suspicious? Or is that absurd?
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
Watching PBS Newshour last night and their journalistic 'expert', whoeverinthehellhewas, stated that what the author of the Rolling Stone artice committed what in journalistic circles would be a "firing" offense. I hope this frat doesn't settle out of court. I'd love to see this rag bite the dust.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
And that was the key thing also missing from the Missoulian coverage. There was plenty of statistical evidence out there, and any decent reporter would have, at a minimum, pointed to the data.grizonbob said:
However, that data has never supported the "Narrative" of "Rape Nation" and in fact pointed to the exact opposite. Florio studiously avoided key facts available to her, because those facts did not support the predetermined narrative, just as the Rolling Stone reporter had a predetermined narrative, and she actively sought out the story to prove it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/05/rolling-stones-disastrous-u-va-story-a-case-of-real-media-bias/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Indeed, had the story not involved a star University Quarterback, it is unlikely that Florio would have bothered with much coverage. She certainly showed little continuing interest or outrage over the actual violent sexual assaults that actually did occur on campus, but which also involved "multicultural" ramifications -- a Muslim and a foreign national -- unsupportive of Florio's "narrative" -- the identical narrative that drove the Rolling Stone debacle.
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Not so hard. All he has to do is say the words. Here is an article on the Virginia's Governors statement about what happened to the State of Virginia. All Bullock has to do is change 'Commonwealth of Virginia' to State of Montana. He could even use a teleprompter. Note: McAuliffe is a DEMOCRAT:
"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe on Monday slammed Rolling Stone magazine for the “abject failure of accountability” that led to the discredited story “A Rape on Campus.”
Columbia Journalism School published a 12,000-word report on Sunday that detailed numerous reporting, editing and fact-checking errors that led to the publication in November 2014 of an erroneous account of a 2012 gang rape at a UVA fraternity house. Upon publication of the Columbia report, the magazine retracted the article and Managing Editor Will Dana offered an apology on behalf of the publication.
McAuliffe said in his statement that the erroneous story has done “untold damage to the University of Virginia and our Commonwealth as a whole.”
“More importantly,” the Virginia Democrat added, “this false account has been an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from real efforts to combat sexual violence on our college campuses.”
His statement echoed that of University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan, who said Sunday: “Irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.” Sullivan added that the piece’s demise ultimately “reinforce[d] the reluctance sexual assault victims already feel about reporting their experience, lest they be doubted or ignored.”
The article set online traffic records for Rolling Stone last November before reporting from multiple news outlets, spearheaded by T. Rees Shapiro at The Washington Post, poked holes in the narrative. The magazine then contracted Columbia University’s journalism school to review the process that led to its publication.
Upon the Columbia report’s release, the story’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, also released a statement of apology. The magazine said it would continue to publish her work. Rolling Stone has not announced any disciplinary measures against editors or fact-checkers in relation to the article’s retraction.
McAuliffe reiterated his commitment to combating campus sexual assault despite Rolling Stone’s reversal.
“My administration will not allow this shameful episode to stop the momentum we have built working with administrators, law enforcement, students and advocates to keep our campuses safe,” he said."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rolling-stone-rape-story-terry-mcauliffe-reaction-116705.html#ixzz3We6cqObU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jesus people, just stop. You are all so convinced you are “right”. Get off your soapboxes.
1) Does a not-guilty verdict mean someone is absolutely innocent? No, of course not.
2) Does a not-guilty verdict mean that someone “got away” with something they actually did? No, of course not.
Two people know for sure what happened in that room and I doubt either of them is one of you.
Drudging the same shit up, over and over and over again is pointless. Move on.
1) Does a not-guilty verdict mean someone is absolutely innocent? No, of course not.
2) Does a not-guilty verdict mean that someone “got away” with something they actually did? No, of course not.
Two people know for sure what happened in that room and I doubt either of them is one of you.
Drudging the same shit up, over and over and over again is pointless. Move on.
Mods, leave the thread alone. It's relevant to UM athletics and football. It's a precursor to what will be discussed in two weeks when Krakauer's book comes out. It's the off-season, except for a few more days of spring football.
This is the internet. Just because a few posters can't defend their positions, or either think or don't think that everything they post is right, doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't be able to have a discussion.
This is the internet. Just because a few posters can't defend their positions, or either think or don't think that everything they post is right, doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't be able to have a discussion.
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
Don't want to read it, don't read it. Calling on the Mods to do what you don't have the the will to do..........Christ! Crawl back into the womb. Well stated PR! :thumb:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
For the Rolling Stone to "match" the Missoulian's coverage, it would have had to give the Reporter space in a news story to vent at her "enemies" and to denounce all those who criticized her coverage as living in a "testosterone soaked-universe," resorting to extremes of hyperbole and a ham-handed effort to "expose" the ownership of egriz and publicly embarass him. It was a nice personal use and exploitation of the journalistic franchise to pursue what had become a personal vendetta for Florio.
"Griz sports forum turns vulgar in wake of sexual assault scandal," by Gwen Florio
http://missoulian.com/news/local/griz-sports-forum-turns-vulgar-in-wake-of-sexual-assault/article_fd9c03ac-aeb5-11e1-9cdf-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Missoulian's effort to create, as a news item, the demonization of an entire "group" by fabricating a "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" myth upon which to score its overt "Narrative" was in fact despicable "journalism." The "Comments" section to that "news article" absolutely shreds the factual claims made, and points out that the Missoulian's own comments and news sections were, in fact, greater offenders by the Florio "standards" than egriz.
Of course, Florio's "Standard Source," YWCA Director Cindy Weese, was a voluble source of comments all about "the effects" on vulnerable women, et etc. of a forum they likely did not read, but offering, as usual, just the perfect quotes for the points Florio obviously wanted to make. It was very much like the "too good to be true" quotes that found Rolling Stone so enthusiastic.
This was a "news" story, written by the reporter who was the focal point of the coverage criticism, allowed to insert supportive editorial comments by her friends who later bestowed her with "awards" for her contribution to the "Narrative."
Rarely, in "real Journalism," are "reporters" allowed to cover themselves by writing self-justifying and abusive critiques of their critics, and call it news. However, at the Missoulian, this was not just "allowed," the behavior was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
In that regard, even the Rolling Stone met the higher standard by at least admitting it was wrong and apologizing ... instead of seeking prestigious awards for it.
"Griz sports forum turns vulgar in wake of sexual assault scandal," by Gwen Florio
http://missoulian.com/news/local/griz-sports-forum-turns-vulgar-in-wake-of-sexual-assault/article_fd9c03ac-aeb5-11e1-9cdf-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There was not a single example of a post "villainizing assault victims" for "calling 9-1-1." The description was not just hyperbole, it was an outright lie. It was itself a shameful effort to create a staw man logical fallacy and then attack it as "representative" of ... you've got it, a group of "males!" But, just to ensure that no one misunderstood the blanket condemnation and the extent of her overt bias, Florio made sure to note that it was an entire "universe" of them. Despite her alleged journalistic prowess, she was unable to find a more nuanced expression of her accusation. Somehow, a "news editor" thought her broadside opinionated attack on her critics was worthy of a "news article." She was, after all, just another hapless victim, right?
The Missoulian's effort to create, as a news item, the demonization of an entire "group" by fabricating a "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" myth upon which to score its overt "Narrative" was in fact despicable "journalism." The "Comments" section to that "news article" absolutely shreds the factual claims made, and points out that the Missoulian's own comments and news sections were, in fact, greater offenders by the Florio "standards" than egriz.
Of course, Florio's "Standard Source," YWCA Director Cindy Weese, was a voluble source of comments all about "the effects" on vulnerable women, et etc. of a forum they likely did not read, but offering, as usual, just the perfect quotes for the points Florio obviously wanted to make. It was very much like the "too good to be true" quotes that found Rolling Stone so enthusiastic.
This was a "news" story, written by the reporter who was the focal point of the coverage criticism, allowed to insert supportive editorial comments by her friends who later bestowed her with "awards" for her contribution to the "Narrative."
Rarely, in "real Journalism," are "reporters" allowed to cover themselves by writing self-justifying and abusive critiques of their critics, and call it news. However, at the Missoulian, this was not just "allowed," the behavior was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
In that regard, even the Rolling Stone met the higher standard by at least admitting it was wrong and apologizing ... instead of seeking prestigious awards for it.
Raider said:
Don't know, but think he will likely present some basic allegation/evidence indicating sexual assault occurred, and then go into more detail about how he got treated like he did because he was a star football player: known local booster attorney and recent former prosecutor attorney who had once testified in university proceeding for an accused (won't say she's one of the more knowledgeable and respected prosecutors of sexual assault in MT); found guilty by U panel but university didn't follow its rules/procedures and let him stay in school (and university now covering up); will leave out most exculpatory information; will play up the popularity of football in the town but leave out the strong feminist element; probably some juicy internet/egriz quotes; probably won't say outright that he was guilty but will insinuate; may find some smaller ways to attack the police investigation; lots of play for quotes from the federal investigation but won't say that the feds never got to see files or interview the county attorneys/investigators; etc. Lots of cherry-picking and insinuation/innuendo. Will clobber the university and probably the county attorney for his stance against the fed investigation. Will play up the various settlements. Will site Donaldson. May cherry pick from the Missoulian. Lots of play for the woes of accuser/survivors. Coverage of the allegations from woman involved with the apparent group blow job, where the police declined to prosecute twice and the police heads up to the football coach/coaches of their decision. Some quotes from Barz reports (and the decision/need to hire her) and probably Engstrom's early quotes.
MODS! Trash this thread immediately!!! IRRELEVANT!
...oh wait.
...oh wait.
Raider said:
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Great thread.... :roll: