The Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” and the reports of its publication boil down to a recent fact: basic journalism rules and skills are getting misled in the big league publications.
The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism published an investigative report two weeks ago, which gives details to the article’s failure at basic reporting. They found that many of the names, such as the attacker “Drew,” were pseudonyms. They failed to contact the victim’s friends, and lacked detailed answers and attributions. The reporter gave vague details to the fraternity about the incident # which didn’t happen.
They found that the main figure “Jackie’s” story was proved false and was concocted to gain attention. The fact-checking and editorial supervision accepted the article, overlooking the article’s red flags, and they didn’t verify the sources. The report summed the article up as a “failure in journalism”
As a beginning journalist, the need in getting the story as accurate as possible is important, especially stories that connect with a harmful situation. Campus rape has been a relevant topic on most campuses over the years, yet it still has been neglected due to the sensitivity of the subject and its victims.
I think the reason the reporter and the magazine didn’t dig deeper into Jackie’s story was to protect her and not lose contact. Other reasons could be the pressure in writing the story. It could be that the magazine wanted a more dramatic account for a bigger impact. The reporter wanted to write about the subject and hope it would alarm people about it and get the universities to find ways of punishing the offenders. The article did this in the worst way possible.
If I were on the editor’s staff, I would be more assertive in checking the sources of the information since she had only one source. It might have been better to drop the whole story since the article, though gripping, looked too sketchy to be a report. It lacked the call-to-action spirit it was aiming for.
The consequences of this article were protests against the alleged fraternity and sending the idea that women lie about rape. The report stated that “social scientists analyzing crime records report that the rate of false rape allegations is 2 to 8 percent”. A small quantity that was projected to the extremes to make it an unintentionally sensational article.
Rolling Stone apologized and is now continuing with its business without consequences (the reporter is still writing for them). They place no blame on anyone but the story, which I find intolerable. Those involved with the story have been smeared by its effects. Yet the magazine going free without change disturbs one about how the media tries to excuse itself of its crimes.
This “failure in journalism” should serve as a lesson for young journalists. Journalists need to hold their stories and sources accountable. The risk of preserving good reporting has never been higher than in this tabloid-media period.
