• 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!

Echoes of JJ case--- campus sexual assault proceeds

grizfromhel

Well-known member
Check out the article below which delineates that journalistic standards are lowered substantially when the reporter has a "narrative" to deliver. Where are you Gwen Florio???

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393784/rolling-stone-saga-everything-thats-wrong-how-we-deal-campus-rape-k-c-johnson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I saw that, didnt have to follow the link. And I was thinking the same thing you were. Its about time the press started asking questions instead of following the Florio's of the world.
 
And now there's this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05/rape-story-unravels-rollng-stone-says-trust-in-uva-source-misplaced/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
biga75 said:
And now there's this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05/rape-story-unravels-rollng-stone-says-trust-in-uva-source-misplaced/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a surprise.

Agenda driven "journalism" without checking facts and investigating credibility does nothing but damage to all sides.
 
MsMaroon said:
Agenda driven "journalism" without checking facts and investigating credibility does nothing but damage to all sides.
No, it's worse than that. These are agenda-driven hit-pieces which receive prominent coverage precisely because their promoters -- reporters and editors -- do not want to check facts and investigate credibility. The agenda is far more important; this was a frank admission by a mainstream media source that "facts were not important," the narrative itself was of sufficient importance that all journalistic safeguards were suspended.

This comes on top of the recent investigation of Lena Dunham's claims in her new book to have been raped on the Oberlin campus by the campus's most conservative, Republican student, while she was a student there. No agendas, there, eh? Except, none of her story is true. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...lican-rapist-story-falls-apart-under-scrutiny

Just as with the New York Times during the Duke LaCrosse case, and the Missoulian with the JJ case, this narrative is driven by the arrogant and aggressive moral posturing of people who could care less about "rape," per se, rather than empowerment of certain political agendas.

If this kind of "rape" was as prevalent as is claimed, it seems mighty strange that the professional "media" has such a hard time finding a real example of it in comparison with the number of times they manage to publicize, repeatedly, astonishing examples of false claims, fabricated events, and outright lies on the part of so-called "victimized" women who are actually attempting to victimize both men and society, ruining reputations and lives, and for which mainstream media is more than willing to be a sympathetic accomplice.

There IS a problem. It is becoming apparent that the willingness of certain women to not only make false claims, but to seek publicity in doing so and do as much damage as they can, is not an isolated event. It is an epidemic.

The media's continued willingness to promote those lies is not an isolated case of "bad judgment."

Rolling Stone violated every rule of journalistic investigation.

It wanted to for this particular story.
 
I wonder what the proliferation of campus rape articles means for Krakauer's book? When people are reading about this stuff at universities they actually recognize, how is an book about the university of popcorn fart going to go over?
 
In the end in "re-victimizes" real victims. Not only do they suffer the initial offense(s), they then have prove that they aren't crying wolf. And the people who actually try prosecute the alleged offenses have to maintain a jaundiced for fear of being duped. Its a very sad situation.
 
Grisly Fan said:
In the end in "re-victimizes" real victims. Not only do they suffer the initial offense(s), they then have prove that they aren't crying wolf. And the people who actually try prosecute the alleged offenses have to maintain a jaundiced for fear of being duped. Its a very sad situation.
And that's the real "crime" that is being perpetrated by the Florio's, the Rolling Stones and the New York Times. By making claims of rape discredited by loudly advancing false claims, they are the enablers of any "rape culture."
 
The media's continued willingness to promote those lies is not an isolated case of "bad judgment."

Rolling Stone violated every rule of journalistic investigation.

It wanted to for this particular story.

I don't disagree with you. I don't think this was just a case of bad judgement. What I meant was . . . this intentional agenda-driven kind of piece does nothing but damage to their cause and credibility when they have to retract. Why don't they get that?

I'm all for investigating and, if there is enough evidence, prosecuting crimes. But I'm increasingly alarmed and shaken by the efforts of so many to push their crazy, illogical agenda: every woman tells the truth and every man lies.
 
Grisly Fan said:
In the end in "re-victimizes" real victims. Not only do they suffer the initial offense(s), they then have prove that they aren't crying wolf. And the people who actually try prosecute the alleged offenses have to maintain a jaundiced for fear of being duped. Its a very sad situation.

This.
 
Same on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/us/rolling-stone-uva-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The women's advocate in the article simple ignores the out right fact the accusations was proven to be 100% a lie, rather says its sad that now others will not come forward with accusations. Ugh....
 
Very few true and easy to prosecute rape cases ever hit the courts. The prosecutors are always a^^ holes in any event. Everyone dislikes and hates rape. Most men and women hate rapists, even in prison they are unpopular slobs.

Most of us also dislike sensational and many times untrue rape cases stated by the general news organizations. Take JJ as an example. He will always have that rape trial weighing heavy over him all his life. Most companies will not hire him, many schools will not let him teach or coach. No way did he get "off". Nothing is released in the news about young men like him. Only companies that are familiar with his case will give him a shot. Ours is one but we are few and far between. No, in the end sexual assault is very hard to deal with no matter the side you end up on. A very nasty situation to deal with in any case, man or woman!
 
Tweet by the author of the Rolling Stone piece, "A rape on campus: a UVA student's disturbing tale of her fight for justice after being brutally assaulted,"
Sabrina Rubin Erdely @SabrinaRErdely, Much happening at UVA - the level of outrage & action from students, parents, alumni, faculty concerned about sexual assault is heartening
A "disturbing" tale, mind you.

Hmm, as with Dunham, how to get attention, power, recognition, sympathy, and money. Brian Bank's accuser, after admitting she had lied, offered no sympathy for Banks' five years in prison, but she did worry, "does this mean I have to give the $1.2 million back?" UM's notorious case, the accuser, before she had done anything else, asked the "Nurse Examiner" who to get "in touch with" regarding a law firm that handled negligence claims against Universities. Dunham publishes a book expected to rake in millions. Sabrina Erdely becomes an overnight celebrity.

And nobody ever gets punished. The "fight for justice," then? Not so much.

Where's Florio and her vaunted investigative skills? Her "search for justice?"

Note the similarities between the UM "gang rape" and the notorious "Hofstra University" case where three young men spent two nights in jail when the female participant later had "regrets" and did not want to appear to her boyfriend as a "slut."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/09/smeary_lines.html

But, one of the young men had recorded the event on his cell phone. The extraordinary similarity of the cases (Hofstra occurred in 2009) warranted not one mention in the Missoulian.

As one law professor noted, even after the Hofstra accusations blew up, the media did not report the name of the young woman, even though she had gone from "victim" to "perpetrator."

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/85537/

Same story here in 2013.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/172132/
 
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/opinion/randazza-uva-rape-allegations/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I was kind of annoyed when the ESPN announcers brought that up about JJ during their commentary on Saturday. Seemed really unnecessary.
 
On November 22, University of Virginia President Teresa A. Sullivan unilaterally suspended all activities by fraternities based on a report on an alleged gang-rape reported by the Rolling Stone.
Today, Rolling Stone for all intents and purposes retracted that story.

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2014/12/suspend-uvas-president.html?m=1

"Even if the Rolling Stone story had been true, [UV President Theresa Sullivan's] response was unfair, prejudiced, and a sign of lousy judgment and poor leadership. But she could have asked simple questions — was there a party on September 28? do they have pledges in the Fall? — herself. Instead, UVA knew about this claim but did nothing until it was in Rolling Stone, and then she responded in a knee-jerk, hateful, PR-oriented way, one that punished the innocent but not the guilty in order to provide the appearance of firmness. That was a betrayal of her responsibility to the University of Virginia’s student body, every one of whom has the right to expect a President who will deal fairly, honestly, and sensibly with whatever comes up."

As the commentator above noted, even the slobs in "Animal House" received more due process.

As they did compared to Robin Pflugerad, Jim O'Day, or Jordan Johnson.

"Dean Wormer" was a stronger advocate of due process than Royce Engstrom.
 
An interesting take on "media bias," in the Washington Post:

Rolling Stone’s disastrous U-Va. story: A case of real media bias

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;

"On Slate’s DoubleX Gabfest podcast last month, reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely explained why she had settled on the University of Virginia as the focus for her investigative story on a horrific 2012 gang rape of a freshman named Jackie at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. “First I looked around at a number of different campuses,” said Erdely. “It took me a while to figure out where I wanted to focus on. But when I finally decided on the University of Virginia — one of the compelling reasons that made me focus on the University of Virginia was when I found Jackie. I made contact with a student activist at the school who told me a lot about the culture of the school — that was one of the important things, sort of criteria that I wanted when I was looking for the right school to focus on.”

Sherry Devlin and Gwen Florio had every appearance of being propelled by the same motivations. And notwithstanding that the biased reporting here in Missoula exploded in their faces, they could not bring themselves to report the honest facts, and Devlin even had the audacity to nominate Florio for a Pulitzer Prize (the effort failed).

"Rolling Stone has issued a statement apologizing for the story, which includes this misogynistic, victim-blaming line: “In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.” But Jackie was a freshman in college when her episode allegedly took place; the story itself references her misgivings about putting her life into the public realm; she requested that Rolling Stone not contact “Drew,” the ringleader of the alleged assault; the alleged sequence of events — nine college men conspiring to attack a freshman and sexually assaulting her for three hours — should have triggered every skeptical twitch in the Rolling Stone staff. This disaster is the sole property of editors and a reporter."

"The story and Erdely’s comments about it, moreover, suggest an effort to produce impact journalism." That was precisely Devlin's and Florio's motive.

"In the case, of Erdely’s piece, however, there’s ample evidence of poisonous biases that landed Rolling Stone in what should be an existential crisis. It starts with this business about choosing just the “right” school for the story. What is that all about? In his first, important piece on this story, the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi described the author’s thought process:

"So, for six weeks starting in June, Erdely interviewed students from across the country. She talked to people at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and her alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. None of those schools felt quite right. But one did: the University of Virginia, a public school, Southern and genteel, brimming with what Erdely calls “super-smart kids” and steeped in the legacy of its founder, Thomas Jefferson.

"A perfect place, in other words, to set a story about a gang rape." ...

"If this allegation alone hadn’t triggered an all-out scramble at Rolling Stone for more corroboration, nothing would have. Anyone who touched this story — save newsstand personnel — should lose their job. The “grooming” anecdote indicates not only that Erdely believed whatever diabolical things about these frat guys told to her, she wanted to believe them. And then Rolling Stone published them."

There is probably the closest example to what the Missoulian undertook two years ago. The two key journalists involved were determined that there was a story here, that this would be their shining contribution to "impact journalism," and the facts be damned.

Notably, they were bound and determined to NOT tell the whole story about the fabricated "gang rape" allegations. What became national headlines over the Hofstra incident and the Rolling Stone story was a story the Missoulian refused to tell. "That" story did not produce the required "narrative."

The Washington Post's column yesterday describes a horrific case of journalistic malpractice on a national scale by a reporter and a media outlet determined to pursue a "social justice" agenda at all costs, including the sacrifice of all journalistic principles, and destroying their own credibility in the process. That agenda is that important to their cause. The Missoulian, right here in zootown, committed precisely the same journalistic malpractice.
 
Here is a great article full of facts and very relevant for what this community and campus has been through.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...risis-rolling-stone-politics-column/20397277/

The great campus rape hoax: Column

Glenn Harlan Reynolds 6:03 p.m. EST December 14, 2014

The truth - that rape on campus is becoming less common - doesn't fit the left's narrative.

Americans have been living through an enormously sensationalized college rape hoax, but as the evidence accumulates it's becoming clear that the entire thing was just a bunch of media hype and political opportunism.

No, I'm not talking about the Rolling Stone's lurid and now-exploded fraternity gang-rape story. Whatever the truth behind that story, it's now clear that basically nothing that Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely told us happened, actually happened. But the hoax is much bigger than one overwrought and perhaps entirely fictional tale of campus goings-on.

For months we've been told that there's a burgeoning "epidemic" of rape on college campuses, that the system for dealing with campus rape is "broken" and that we need new federal legislation (of course!) to deal with this disaster. Before the Rolling Stone story imploded, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were citing the Virginia gang rape as evidence of the problem, but now that the story has been exposed as bogus, they're telling us that, regardless of that isolated incident, there's still a huge campus rape problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

And that's the real college rape hoax. Because the truth is that there's no epidemic outbreak of college rape. In fact, rape on college campuses is — like rape everywhere else in America — plummeting in frequency. And that 1-in-5 college rape number you keep hearing in the press? It's thoroughly bogus, too. (Even the authors of that study say that "We don't think one in five is a nationally representative statistic," because it sampled only two schools.)

Sen, Gillibrand also says that "women are at a greater risk of sexual assault as soon as they step onto a college campus."

The truth — and, since she's a politician, maybe that shouldn't be such a surprise — is exactly the opposite. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000). (Note: not 1 in 5). What's more, between 1997 and 2013, rape against women dropped by about 50%, in keeping with a more general drop in violent crime nationally.

Upshot: Women on campus aren't at more risk for sexual assault, and their risk is nothing like the bogus 1-in-5 statistic bandied about by politicians and activists. So why is this non-crisis getting so much press?

It's getting press because it suits the interests of those pushing the story. For Gillibrand and McCaskill, it's a woman-related story that helps boost their status as female senators. It ties in with the "war on women" theme that Democrats have been boosting since 2012, and will presumably roll out once again in 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton, or perhaps Elizabeth Warren. And University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan hasn't apologized for her action in suspending all fraternities (and sororities) on the basis of a bogus story in Rolling Stone. Nor has she apologized for the mob mentality on campus that saw arrests, vandalism and protests at a fraternity house based, again, on a single bogus report. Instead, she's doubling down on the narrative.

This kind of hysteria may be ugly, but for campus activists and bureaucrats it's a source of power: If there's a "campus rape crisis," that means that we need new rules, bigger budgets, and expanded power and self-importance for all involved, with the added advantage of letting you call your political opponents (or anyone who threatens funding) "pro rape." If we focus on the truth, however — rapidly declining rape rates already, without any particular "crisis" programs in place — then voters, taxpayers, and university trustees will probably decide to invest resources elsewhere. So for politicians and activists, a phony crisis beats no crisis.

At least until people catch on. As George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf notes, "After a while, the boy who cried wolf wasn't believed, and the women who cry rape may likewise not be believed, especially with the accusations of rape at Duke University and the University of Virginia fresh in people's minds."

Even one rape is too many, of course, on or off of campus. But when activists and politicians try to gin up a phony crisis, public trust is likely to be a major casualty. It's almost as if helping actual rape victims is the last thing on these people's minds.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or sign up for the daily opinion email newsletter.
 
A big take away from the first linked article is that handling of rape and sexual assault charges should be done by the police. That the Universities role should be to encourage victims to report to police and educate their students about who to contact after an assault, and generally create an environment where victims are comfortable reporting to appropriate law enforcement authorities - NOT trying to prosecute or investigate on their own. As that article says this protects sex assault victims and the accused by providing them due process which the University process does not.
 
Back
Top