An apology from Rolling Stone

[UMGriz75]

What drives me nuts are the comments on the news that carry a message such as, " the real victims in this case are the women who are actually victims of rape," as if it's no big deal that the accusations have the potential to ruin lives.

False accusations are harmful. However, some people get accused of things they actually did (see John Gotti), but weren't convicted. Those people weren't harmed by the accusation.

And so, therefore, none are?

Do you think in terms of "logical fallacies" or are we just lucky to have your inspired confusion of what happened with something else that happened, say, to John Gotti?

 

[getgrizzy]

Florio shares much in common with the Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Erdely:

Sabrin Rubin Erdely started with a thesis and went in search of someone—and some place—that fit her thesis. She found Jackie and the University of Virginia. But, she admits, if she had discovered that Jackie was a liar, it wouldn’t have caused her to question her thesis. (To which the only response is, if that doesn’t cause you to question your thesis, what would?) Instead, she’d just go find another person who would better conform to what she already wanted to write.

And if that person proved to be a fraud as well, she’d find another…and another…

I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if Phi Psi has a strong case against Erdely and Rolling Stone. But if the famed “actual malice” test—you are intending to defame someone—is relevant, it seems to me that Erdely has just given the fraternity some explicit evidence of such malice. Even if her “victim” was a liar, Erdely has no doubt: Frat boys are rapists.

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2015/04/07/in-the-end-its-all-about-rape-culture-or-the-lack-thereof/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Florio, as the Missoulians court reporter, covered numerous rape trials. Erderly isn't covering a trial.

 

[UMGriz75]

Florio shares much in common with the Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Erdely:

Florio, as the Missoulians court reporter, covered numerous rape trials. Erderly isn't covering a trial.

I think one is taller than the other as well.

But, as noted earlier, 95% of Florio's coverage was prior to the trial; building up to her "Pulitzer Prize," building the "story line" about "rape nation," hoping to write ... The Book.

 

[getgrizzy]

What drives me nuts are the comments on the news that carry a message such as, " the real victims in this case are the women who are actually victims of rape," as if it's no big deal that the accusations have the potential to ruin lives.

False accusations are harmful. However, some people get accused of things they actually did (see John Gotti), but weren't convicted. Those people weren't harmed by the accusation.

And so, therefore, none are?

Do you think in terms of "logical fallacies" or are we just lucky to have your inspired confusion of what happened with something else that happened, say, to John Gotti?

How can someone so smart not understand that? Oh, I forgot, you have an agenda.

 

[statler & waldorf]

UMGriz75, great posts as usual. Getgrizzy and others of your ilk might consider something easier in the future, such as arguing physics with Stephen Hawking.

 

[Grisly Fan]

The "real victims" in all this are the "real victims", the women who have actually been raped. The perpetrators are psychologically damaged and/or morally corrupt men. Nothing has or will come out of this to address the root problem. So we argue, fuss, and fight and the authorities stumble and bumble and nothing ever changes. Really depressing.

 

[UMGriz75]

The "real victims" in all this are the "real victims", the women who have actually been raped. The perpetrators are psychologically damaged and/or morally corrupt men. Nothing has or will come out of this to address the root problem. So we argue, fuss, and fight and the authorities stumble and bumble and nothing ever changes. Really depressing.

Your use of the term "real victims," and limiting it specifically, suggests that false accusations have no permanent effect on young men. Victims of rape need to be vindicated. The only example of that not happening at UM -- the only example of actual violent rape in that time frame -- was the one singularly handled by UM directly out of Main Hall, getting the Muslim student out of town, and then actually claiming that it was likely "all for the best."

The Missoulian offered no hysteria about "justice for the victims" in that instance. The "narrative" was too complicated by ethnic and religious "realities" for which "political correctness" offered a solution that did nothing for authentic "real victims." It was not just "depressing," it offered a glimpse of just how politicized that whole issue became, and how hypocritical the coverage was, in large part because of personal agendas on the part of the Missoulian reporter covering the "story of her career."

Trying to pretend that a young athlete spending 10 years in prison as the result of a false accusation is not "a real victim" is not just depressing, it is disgusting.

 

[Grisly Fan]

The "real victims" in all this are the "real victims", the women who have actually been raped. The perpetrators are psychologically damaged and/or morally corrupt men. Nothing has or will come out of this to address the root problem. So we argue, fuss, and fight and the authorities stumble and bumble and nothing ever changes. Really depressing.

Your use of the term "real victims," and limiting it specifically, suggests that false accusations have no permanent effect on young men. Victims of rape need to be vindicated. The only example of that not happening at UM -- the only example of actual violent rape in that time frame -- was the one singularly handled by UM directly out of Main Hall, getting the Muslim student out of town, and then actually claiming that it was likely "all for the best."

The Missoulian offered no hysteria about "justice for the victims" in that instance. The "narrative" was too complicated by ethnic and religious "realities" for which "political correctness" offered a solution that did nothing for authentic "real victims." It was not just "depressing," it offered a glimpse of just how politicized that whole issue became, and how hypocritical the coverage was, in large part because of personal agendas on the part of the Missoulian reporter covering the "story of her career."

Trying to pretend that a young athlete spending 10 years in prison as the result of a false accusation is not "a real victim" is not just depressing, it is disgusting.

I don't disagree with anything you say but I was referring to the "real victims of rape" which necessarily excludes false accusations. I guess my attempt to shift the conversation from something that has been beaten to death virtually ad nauseum on this forum to something which no one has said much about (i.e. the root cause of rape) escaped you. If we could (in a perfect world) eliminate rape then false accusations would be all you were left with and would be easy to deal with. Obviously eradication of the problem is unrealistic but it feels like fewer real victims would result in fewer false allegations. I hope agree.

 

[UMGriz75]

The "Twitter" feed from the Florio trial had stated that when the Jury Verdict was read, Florio burst into tears. I could not tell from the nature of "Twitter" whether it was a sarcastic remark or an actual observation. "Missoulian coverage" did not mention the incident.

Anyone know for sure?

 

[PlayerRep]

Using the term "real victims" politicizes the issue. There is no such thing as "real" victims, in my view. Victims are victims. They are women who were sexually assaulted. They may be people who were falsely accused. And then there are the many who fall in the in-between category of some types of date rape--where it is not clear what happened or the parties don't agree on what happened or view the various acts the same.

The definition of sexual assault has evolved over the years. I don't think that people agree on what constitutes sexual assault, even courts have provided certain guidance. There may be actions or statements that are ambiguous, i.e. the parties don't agree on what they mean/meant or the accused didn't interpret the statement/action, or supposed statement/action, the way the accuser says it was meant.

Even "no means no" isn't clear, because there are times when a "no" may not be clear in meaning. Getgrizzy's prior comment that it was necessary to pull out if I woman changed her mind and said no during penetration got me thinking. Say, during sex/penetration, a soft "no" is uttered, without any other words or actions. What does that mean?

I'm sorry, but some women have learned to use allegations of sexual assault as a weapon and there are some false or shaded allegations. Athletics and high profile people are especially vulnerable. Sure, rape is terrible, but so is murder, physical assault and kidnapping. Those aren't popular political issues with the federal government or on college campuses, so not much is heard about them. Why? No political support and no politicians looking for votes. Why aren't there "survivors" of physical assault and kidnapping? The survivor thing drives me nuts. I guess I'm a survivor of having my dad die when I was 10, and having a 6 month old baby die. I suppose some of you are "survivors" of divorce, tragedies and other things.

 

[UMGriz75]

Using the term "real victims" politicizes the issue. There is no such thing as "real" victims, in my view. Victims are victims. They are women who were sexually assaulted. They may be people who were falsely accused. And then there are the many who fall in the in-between category of some types of date rape--where it is not clear what happened or the parties don't agree on what happened or view the various acts the same.

The definition of sexual assault has evolved over the years. I don't think that people agree on what constitutes sexual assault, even courts have provided certain guidance. There may be actions or statements that are ambiguous, i.e. the parties don't agree on what they mean/meant or the accused didn't interpret the statement/action, or supposed statement/action, the way the accuser says it was meant.

Even "no means no" isn't clear, because there are times when a "no" may not be clear in meaning.

I liked George Will's "take" on it, that in many ways modern "Progressive" views attempt to relegate women automatically to "victim" status, incapable of expressing their true feelings, not just invariably "damaged" by real AND perceived assaults and insults as well, but by personalized interpretations of "what happened" often enough entirely independent of what actually happened. That somehow, the ideal of strong independent women has ceased to exist and is replaced by an interpretation that is, ultimately, degrading to women as lacking the possession of independent moral agency.

As for what you call my "ancient belliefs," which you think derive from an "antiquated" and "counterintuitive" culture, allow me to tell you something really counterintuitive: I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do. Which is why I worry about definitions of that category of crime that might, by their breadth, tend to trivialize it. And why I think sexual assault is a felony that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus
processes.

Over many centuries, we have refined our commitment to due process; we should not casually depart from what we have developed.

And speaking of the counterintuitive, consider assumptions about how to assign responsibility regarding sexual intimacies: Do the four of you, or do I, have more confidence in what feminism once valuably asserted -- the fact that women are the equals of men in possession of moral agency?

It took many centuries for this, too, to become broadly and firmly accepted in law and culture. All of us concerned about justice, and about the culture of mutual respect between young men and women, should think long and hard about how their behaviors are judged and responsibilities assigned. --- George F. Will

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/George-Will-reply-to-Senators.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What Rolling Stone did was attempt to create the spectacle of a young woman, completely victimized by her own choices of dates, places to go, and social settings and that, as the result of those choices, she was horribly brutalized and traumatized. And of course, the underlying message is that she cannot be held responsible for her choices, that rather, it is a "Rape Culture" that victimizes such young women; that it is always the result of "someone else" in a position of power and authority, unless of course it is Bill Clinton.

It is an uncomfortable conversation in a current world where young women are voluntarily leaving their comfortable Western lifestyles to join ISIS and other such groups, knowing full well that they will likely be raped. The moral agency of such choices is inexplicable. But those choices remain unexamined by Rolling Stone and other publications seeking to promote the "specific narrative." The remarkable aspect of it all is how often the "narrative" fails, most often by the exposure of false allegations designed to create a false narrative in the first place.

The "true victims" are most aggrieved by those trying to politicize "victimization" and doing so by fabricating "victims" because the "real victims" aren't good enough for the "narrative."

 

[getgrizzy]

The "Twitter" feed from the Florio trial had stated that when the Jury Verdict was read, Florio burst into tears. I could not tell from the nature of "Twitter" whether it was a sarcastic remark or an actual observation. "Missoulian coverage" did not mention the incident.

Anyone know for sure?

Are you really this desperate? Of course you are.

 

[UMGriz75]

The "Twitter" feed from the Florio trial had stated that when the Jury Verdict was read, Florio burst into tears. I could not tell from the nature of "Twitter" whether it was a sarcastic remark or an actual observation. "Missoulian coverage" did not mention the incident.

Anyone know for sure?

Are you really this desperate? Of course you are.

It's fun reading your stuff. Like reading a little kid that learned to read and type several years too early. Literally, it is LOL material, "you must be DESPERATE!!!" Not desperate enough to break down during a jury verdict, but I'll bet you did, judging by your response. It must have been heartbreaking to you.

 

[JBS]

If Florio's reporting was that bad a bunch of you would have examples of it in your signature lines and would reference specific things she reported that were so off the wall.

Really? That's the test?

How about omission?

"I don't have a condom."

"That's OK."

Not reported by Missoulian. Must not have been relevant [to the "Narrative."]

Oh yeah? I think you better do a little more research. http://missoulian.com/news/local/jordan-johnson-to-jurors-she-never-said-no/article_34590122-8117-11e2-844d-0019bb2963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

If 75s credibility is in the tank then so is the juries, who decided this. I attended the trial 3 days, the first being when the accuser testified. By the end of her testimony all you had to do was look at the jury and know that it was over. They didn't buy a word she said. What the Missoulioan reported throughout the trial was not remotely close to what actually was said in the courtroom, and that has been 75s point. Someone who only read the Missoulian reports would have no idea what was actually happening in the courtroom.

 

[JBS]

As far as the book goes, I could see there being something about, prosecutor gets cushy job in private practice. *allow readers to draw conclusions about prosecutor who's name is on cans of crappy beer.

The prosecutor isn't the only one involved in that case whose name is on cans of cheap (although not crappy) beer.

 

[UMGriz75]

If 75s credibility is in the tank then so is the juries, who decided this. I attended the trial 3 days, the first being when the accuser testified. By the end of her testimony all you had to do was look at the jury and know that it was over. They didn't buy a word she said. What the Missoulioan reported throughout the trial was not remotely close to what actually was said in the courtroom, and that has been 75s point. Someone who only read the Missoulian reports would have no idea what was actually happening in the courtroom.

Thank you for that observation. The Missoullian coverage leading up to the trial was bizarre enough in many ways, but during the trial, it simply went over the cliff.

The analogy between what the Rolling Stone article attempted to achieve, and what Gwen Florio attempted to achieve, is complete. In neither case did the reporter report what happened, but rather they reported what they "desperately" wanted to have happened, in order to support pre-judged and pre-arranged agendas.

The editors at the Rolling Stone owed no apologies to the editors at the Missoulian under the same circumstances. As testimony after testimony unfolded, what was reported by the Missoulian and what was actually said under oath described two different trials unfolding -- the one before an empaneled jury in the real courtroom, and the one that Gwen Florio desperately wished was unfolding, and chose to write about.

The "Tweets" that accompanied the testimony, literally sentence by sentence, should have made it clear to any honest editor. And to those of us who directly watched and listened to the direct testimony, in the Courtroom, the "Tweets" were far more accurate than the reports of the educated journalism reporter paid to honor the public with straightfoward reporting of facts.

If the witnesses were not going to give her what she wanted, Florio was determined to write it up anyway. I noted at the time, witness after witness, that in most cases the State's witnesses would make some devastating admission, the looks on the Juror's faces were unmistakable, and yet Florio's reporting made it seem like the State was making home run after home run.

Anyone relying on Florio would have had no idea of how bad that case was, and how badly it was being presented.

And that is because she was writing a Rolling Stone-style expose, designed purely to advance a partisan agenda, and that was her last chance to ensure that the historical record -- "news reports" -- told it as she wanted it told, not as it happened.

It was disgraceful "journalism," and the Missoulian staff was, as the Rolling Stone staff was, entirely complicit it.

Rolling Stone got caught by the Washington Post. The Missoulian was exposed by a unanimous jury verdict.

 

[PlayerRep]

The Kaimin coverage that I read was pretty good--sometimes very good. I watched most of the trial in person, and sometimes followed the tweets on my laptop at the same time. The tweets helped fill in gaps when witnesses were hard to hear.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

If 75s credibility is in the tank then so is the juries, who decided this. I attended the trial 3 days, the first being when the accuser testified. By the end of her testimony all you had to do was look at the jury and know that it was over. They didn't buy a word she said. What the Missoulioan reported throughout the trial was not remotely close to what actually was said in the courtroom, and that has been 75s point. Someone who only read the Missoulian reports would have no idea what was actually happening in the courtroom.

Thank you for that observation. The Missoullian coverage leading up to the trial was bizarre enough in many ways, but during the trial, it simply went over the cliff.

The analogy between what the Rolling Stone article attempted to achieve, and what Gwen Florio attempted to achieve, is complete. In neither case did the reporter report what happened, but rather they reported what they "desperately" wanted to have happened, in order to support pre-judged and pre-arranged agendas.

The editors at the Rolling Stone owed no apologies to the editors at the Missoulian under the same circumstances. As testimony after testimony unfolded, what was reported by the Missoulian and what was actually said under oath described two different trials unfolding -- the one before an empaneled jury in the real courtroom, and the one that Gwen Florio desperately wished was unfolding, and chose to write about.

The "Tweets" that accompanied the testimony, literally sentence by sentence, should have made it clear to any honest editor. And to those of us who directly watched and listened to the direct testimony, in the Courtroom, the "Tweets" were far more accurate than the reports of the educated journalism reporter paid to honor the public with straightfoward reporting of facts.

If the witnesses were not going to give her what she wanted, Florio was determined to write it up anyway. I noted at the time, witness after witness, that in most cases the State's witnesses would make some devastating admission, the looks on the Juror's faces were unmistakable, and yet Florio's reporting made it seem like the State was making home run after home run.

Anyone relying on Florio would have had no idea of how bad that case was, and how badly it was being presented.

And that is because she was writing a Rolling Stone-style expose, designed purely to advance a partisan agenda, and that was her last chance to ensure that the historical record -- "news reports" -- told it as she wanted it told, not as it happened.

It was disgraceful "journalism," and the Missoulian staff was, as the Rolling Stone staff was, entirely complicit it.

Rolling Stone got caught by the Washington Post. The Missoulian was exposed by a unanimous jury verdict.

Unfortunately, the journalistic situation you just discribed is just the way it is now days. In fact, these "hacks" like Gwen know that most Americans want their news reported in a slanted way and with a pre-determind agenda. The abolishment of the "equal time" clause and the development of talk radio have made sure of that. Yes, the days of an iconic broadcaster like Walter Cronkite diligently reporting the evening news are long gone. Sure CNN tried to be an unbiased news organization but they soon realized that they couldn't compete with the MSNBCs and FOXNEWs of the world. It's all about ratings now not journalistic integrity and accuracy. And if you'll excuse me, I'm going to fire up a Marlboro 100 and drink my Beefeaters and tonic.....

 

[montanaguy]

If 75s credibility is in the tank then so is the juries, who decided this. I attended the trial 3 days, the first being when the accuser testified. By the end of her testimony all you had to do was look at the jury and know that it was over. They didn't buy a word she said. What the Missoulioan reported throughout the trial was not remotely close to what actually was said in the courtroom, and that has been 75s point. Someone who only read the Missoulian reports would have no idea what was actually happening in the courtroom.

Thank you for that observation. The Missoullian coverage leading up to the trial was bizarre enough in many ways, but during the trial, it simply went over the cliff.

The analogy between what the Rolling Stone article attempted to achieve, and what Gwen Florio attempted to achieve, is complete. In neither case did the reporter report what happened, but rather they reported what they "desperately" wanted to have happened, in order to support pre-judged and pre-arranged agendas.

The editors at the Rolling Stone owed no apologies to the editors at the Missoulian under the same circumstances. As testimony after testimony unfolded, what was reported by the Missoulian and what was actually said under oath described two different trials unfolding -- the one before an empaneled jury in the real courtroom, and the one that Gwen Florio desperately wished was unfolding, and chose to write about.

The "Tweets" that accompanied the testimony, literally sentence by sentence, should have made it clear to any honest editor. And to those of us who directly watched and listened to the direct testimony, in the Courtroom, the "Tweets" were far more accurate than the reports of the educated journalism reporter paid to honor the public with straightfoward reporting of facts.

If the witnesses were not going to give her what she wanted, Florio was determined to write it up anyway. I noted at the time, witness after witness, that in most cases the State's witnesses would make some devastating admission, the looks on the Juror's faces were unmistakable, and yet Florio's reporting made it seem like the State was making home run after home run.

Anyone relying on Florio would have had no idea of how bad that case was, and how badly it was being presented.

And that is because she was writing a Rolling Stone-style expose, designed purely to advance a partisan agenda, and that was her last chance to ensure that the historical record -- "news reports" -- told it as she wanted it told, not as it happened.

It was disgraceful "journalism," and the Missoulian staff was, as the Rolling Stone staff was, entirely complicit it.

Rolling Stone got caught by the Washington Post. The Missoulian was exposed by a unanimous jury verdict.

:thumb: Excellent summation. You have a total and keen grasp of the situation, '75. I was somewhat skeptical of Florio's 'reporting' but after attending several sessions of the trial I was bowled over by the total WTF! realization that she was on a witch hunt that had nothing to do with reality as it was presented to a jury.

 

[JBS]

After reading this entire thread, I've concluded it would be impossible to use the quote function for all of getrizzy's idiocy. On a side note, is it possible grizzy actually is Florio?

Saying that someone found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent is idiotic. A defendant comes in presumed innocent, and when found not guilty they remain innocent. That argument only works if someone is presumed guilty.

The reason the accuser and defendants testimony meshed with each others during the trial was that they were under oath. The accusers earlier statements to people, medical people in particular, were ripped to shreds during the trial when these people were called as witnesses, again under oath, because they didn't match what she said at trial. It was a bloodbath. Many people were hurt in this whole ordeal, none more than JJ, but even a lot of the people pushing the agenda who may have deserved it. This is what agenda driven, biased news coverage does.

But then again, some get rewarded with adjunct professor jobs at the University. Go figure.