“[O]ur trust in her was misplaced.” Hey guys, that rape survivor we interviewed? She’s totally, like, untrustworthy and everyone should ignore her!
Huh? Why did a middle-aged man who lords over managerial editing at Rolling Stone dismiss his own magazine’s investigation into rape culture at University of Virginia? Did Will Dana discover UVA’s leaders are actually really nice and don’t systematically violate the civil rights of survivors? Did he find evidence refuting UVA’s decades-long reputation for sweeping sexual violence under the rug? Did he obtain a reasonable explanation from UVA’s president for why the school punishes cheaters more than rapists?
Nah, it was much more mundane. For folks not following this case closely – which is understandable, given how much ugliness is erupting simultaneously this month – here’s literally* what happened…
- On November 19th, Rolling Stone published an article examining sexual violence at UVA. Most of it revolved around the alleged gang rape of a student pseudonymed “Jackie”, and the school’s apathy toward addressing rape generally. But the article also cited multiple survivors who reported virtually identical experiences with UVA’s indifference toward preventing rape on campus.
- Subsequently, The Washington Post and other media outlets interviewed Jackie or sought statements from the fraternity involved in the alleged attack. Shockingly, the frat denied its members raped Jackie or did anything that could reflect poorly on its proud name. (Surprising, huh?) Equally shockingly, Jackie’s friends told The Post that a whopping two aspects in the article didn’t match what they’d heard from Jackie – firstly the severity of the assault, and secondly the exact frat where one attacker lived.
- Caught between competing claims that Jackie’s gang rape wasn’t as awful as had been reported, and the frat’s denial that its members were trained rapists, the editor of Rolling Stone decided a follow-up investigation into those claims was too much trouble and issued a statement on December 5th, attacking Jackie for not giving both sides of the story. “[W]e have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.”
Wait, what? How the hell is that even relevant to the main criticism of your magazine’s article, namely that the writer refused to interview the men Jackie claims assaulted her? Given that the fraternity was obviously going to disagree on whether they really gang-raped Jackie, is that a credible reason to smear your source as a liar?
* Because that’s literally what happened. Rolling Stone reported on Jackie’s rape, and then heard a different story from the alleged rapists. Then the magazine decided, despite the fraternity’s weak attempts at proving nothing happened, versus numerous past complaints and an ongoing federal investigation into UVA’s mishandling of campus rape, that the fraternity’s version of events was enough to dismiss the victim as untrustworthy.
Jackie had asked the writer to not contact her alleged attackers prior to publication, for fear of reprisal. Given the sordid history of schools retaliating against survivors, this was a reasonable sentiment. In fact, given how conservatives are now exploiting the magazine’s dismissal of Jackie’s trustworthiness as an excuse to threaten and harass her, Jackie was indeed correct to fear for her safety.
And that’s the fault of Rolling Stone. Whilst it surreptitiously edited out part of its apology about how “our trust in her was misplaced”, blaming the victim for the magazine’s shortcomings was not only a re-victimisation of Jackie, but an obscenity against victims everywhere.
Nor are the folks at The Post who’ve continued investigating Jackie’s case – basically doing what Rolling Stone arguably should have done first – at fault for smearing Jackie. They never argued that her story was fabricated, merely that holes existed because the magazine didn’t cover both sides. Thanks to the magazine’s cowardly betrayal of a survivor, anti-women conservatives are now having a field day with painting the case as an outright hoax, dismissing violence against women as liberal paranoia.
Even Erik Wemple, writer for The Post and a leading voice for investigating holes in Jackie’s case, reacted with disgust to how Rolling Stone responded by attacking Jackie as a fraud. “[M]isogynistic… victim-blaming” was what he called it. Those on the side-lines had choicer words: “a brutal setback for women”, “a gift to rape apologists” that could set back survivor advocates by “30 years”.
Rolling Stone shouldn’t be ashamed for bad journalism. Even the best outlets end up with subpar stories sometimes. Instead, Rolling Stone should be ashamed for acting vilely toward a survivor. Common decency isn’t too much to ask.