Whaat the Media Left Out of the Phony Rolling Stone Story

Rolling StoneThe Rolling Stone story about a student named Jackie who said she was ganged raped at a fraternity house at the University of Virginia is a textbook example of journalistic malpractice. Rolling Stone got just about everything wrong. For openers, there was no gang rape. The reporter didn’t even try to talk to the alleged rapists. And now, a review of the botched story by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism concludes that Rolling Stone failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice.”

But something has been missing from the stories I’ve seen. We know that Jackie made the whole thing up. So shouldn’t there be outrage over the pain and suffering she caused? Incredibly, the editor of the article, Sean Woods says Rolling Stone was unfair – to Jackie.

“Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim,” Woods told the Columbia University investigators.

Rape victim?  Who’s he talking about?  Jackie lied, remember?

Then he said, “We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.” (Emphasis added)

So Rolling Stone believes it did Jackie a disservice — and not that Jackie did a lot of innocent people a disservice? Is this a joke?

And when a reporter asked a Columbia University professor who helped write the report if Rolling Stone’s publisher was on to something when he said part of the blame lies with Jackie, the professor responded: “We don’t believe that in this case Jackie was to blame.”

It’s true that Jackie may not be to blame for Rolling Stone’s abysmal journalism, but Jackie most certainly is to blame for starting the fire that caused so much trouble.

Journalists who are rightly bashing Rolling Stone apparently don’t want to discuss the role of political correctness in all of this. Liberal journalists and academics don’t want to put a supposed victim of rape in the crosshairs even when she’s not really a victim of rape.

Jackie isn’t talking. She didn’t cooperate with Columbia University or the police who investigated her story. She’s the elephant in the room and just about everybody in the world of journalism is making believe Rolling Stone is the one and only villain.

Where are the editorials demanding that she be expelled from school? If she broke the law, shouldn’t she be prosecuted? There’s talk that while the gang rape never occurred something else might have happened to Jackie. Yes, and maybe nothing else has happened to Jackie. She is a liar, after all.  She’s not entitled to any befits of any doubts.

In a statement responding to the Columbia report, University of Virginia’s president Teresa Sullivan described the Rolling Stone article as irresponsible journalism that “unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.”

Shame on her too. Not a word from the president about how Jackie damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.

Not a word.

Rolling Stone is guilty of monumentally bad journalism. We can all agree on that. But the media watchdogs are guilty too – guilty of cowardice, a cowardice that is so pathetic that they even pander to liars — as long as the liars are women who make claims against men — no matter how outrageous or false.

If a male college student made up some phony story about how a young woman on campus hit him over the head with a beer bottle, the media, the president of the University, and the police wouldn’t let him get away with it.

But Jackie is off limits.

That’s because in a liberal PC culture, women are seen as victims of male oppression. So what if Jackie wasn’t really raped? A mere technicality. She could have been.  After all, rape on America’s college campuses is a “plague” —  a word used by a former Washington Post ombudsman on CNN.  Except, that’s another lie.  There is no plague.  There is no epidemic of campus rape.  Google “Myth of Campus Rape” and you’ll quickly find serious thinkers, scholars like Heather MacDonald and Christina Hoff Sommers, who put a lie to that piece of feminist propaganda.

What we’re seeing here is how little liberal journalists and liberal presidents of places like the University of Virginia really think about women. They’ll look the other way when they lie. They won’t treat them like grownups who should be held accountable. Because if they did, Jackie would have been told to pack her bags and leave school a long time ago.




What the Media Left Out of the Phony Rolling Stone Story

Rolling StoneThe Rolling Stone story about a student named Jackie who said she was ganged raped at a fraternity house at the University of Virginia is a textbook example of journalistic malpractice. Rolling Stone got just about everything wrong. For openers, there was no gang rape. The reporter didn’t even try to talk to the alleged rapists. And now, a review of the botched story by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism concludes that Rolling Stone failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice.”

But something has been missing from the stories I’ve seen. We know that Jackie made the whole thing up. So shouldn’t there be outrage over the pain and suffering she caused? Incredibly, the editor of the article, Sean Woods says Rolling Stone was unfair – to Jackie.

“Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim,” Woods told the Columbia University investigators.

Rape victim?  Who’s he talking about?  Jackie lied, remember?

Then he said, “We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.” (Emphasis added)

So Rolling Stone believes it did Jackie a disservice — and not that Jackie did a lot of innocent people a disservice? Is this a joke?

And when a reporter asked a Columbia University professor who helped write the report if Rolling Stone’s publisher was on to something when he said part of the blame lies with Jackie, the professor responded: “We don’t believe that in this case Jackie was to blame.”

It’s true that Jackie may not be to blame for Rolling Stone’s abysmal journalism, but Jackie most certainly is to blame for starting the fire that caused so much trouble.

Journalists who are rightly bashing Rolling Stone apparently don’t want to discuss the role of political correctness in all of this. Liberal journalists and academics don’t want to put a supposed victim of rape in the crosshairs even when she’s not really a victim of rape.

Jackie isn’t talking. She didn’t cooperate with Columbia University or the police who investigated her story. She’s the elephant in the room and just about everybody in the world of journalism is making believe Rolling Stone is the one and only villain.

Where are the editorials demanding that she be expelled from school? If she broke the law, shouldn’t she be prosecuted? There’s talk that while the gang rape never occurred something else might have happened to Jackie. Yes, and maybe nothing else has happened to Jackie. She is a liar, after all.  She’s not entitled to any benefits of any doubts.

In a statement responding to the Columbia report, University of Virginia’s president Teresa Sullivan described the Rolling Stone article as irresponsible journalism that “unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.”

Shame on her too. Not a word from the president about how Jackie damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.

Not a word.

Rolling Stone is guilty of monumentally bad journalism. We can all agree on that. But the media watchdogs are guilty too – guilty of cowardice, a cowardice that is so pathetic that they even pander to liars — as long as the liars are women who make claims against men — no matter how outrageous or false.

If a male college student made up some phony story about how a young woman on campus hit him over the head with a beer bottle, the media, the president of the University, and the police wouldn’t let him get away with it.

But Jackie is off limits.

That’s because in a liberal PC culture, women are seen as victims of male oppression. So what if Jackie wasn’t really raped? A mere technicality. She could have been.  After all, rape on America’s college campuses is a “plague” —  a word used by a former Washington Post ombudsman on CNN.  Except, that’s another lie.  There is no plague.  There is no epidemic of campus rape.  Google “Myth of Campus Rape” and you’ll quickly find serious thinkers, scholars like Heather MacDonald and Christina Hoff Sommers, who put a lie to that piece of feminist propaganda.

What we’re seeing here is how little liberal journalists and liberal presidents of places like the University of Virginia really think about women. They’ll look the other way when they lie. They won’t treat them like grownups who should be held accountable. Because if they did, Jackie would have been told to pack her bags and leave school a long time ago.




Let’s Talk Sex and Magazine Covers

espn-magazine-cover-lingerieLast week a huge controversy broke out over the use of a particular photo of Boston terrorist, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, by Rolling Stone magazine.  A lot of people thought the use of that particular photo, showing a “sexy” Tsarnaev, rewarded him with “celebrity” status while I’m sure the lunatics who think this creep is innocent, loved it.  I don’t read Rolling Stone magazine so I have no idea how good or bad the article is.  I wouldn’t have used such a photo if it were my magazine.  But that’s just me.

But while at the airport last weekend, I noticed something very interesting.  Darkened plastic sheets covered Playboy and Penthouse magazines.  I know the smoky-colored plastic has been around for quite a while and, I presume, it’s used by retail merchants to hide sexy covers from children and others who are offended by the photos.

In the store I was in, these magazines were on the top shelf and out of sight and reach of any child.  What was even more interesting is that I lifted the plastic of each cover and couldn’t quite understand why the covers were hidden in the first place.

First, the Playboy cover was a graphic of one woman, in a one piece bathing suit (yes! a one piece) replicated and arranged in different positions to form the Playboy bunny logo.  It took up the entire cover.

The Penthouse cover showed a model/actress/nobody in lingerie.

Anyone watching a Victoria’s Secret commercial will see a whole lot more skin than either of these two covers offer.

Honestly, I can’t imagine who would actually be offended by either of these magazine covers.  But, then again, this is this month and perhaps the covers are racier in others.

The reason I bring any of this up is that while I’m perusing the rest of the magazines, I see ESPN magazine which was positioned on the very bottom shelf – not against the wall but parallel to the floor.  Anyone — man, woman or child — need only lower their head and the cover was right there.  So, you’re wondering why is she writing about this?

Here’s the cover:

espn-magazine-cover-lingerieSo, the Playboy cover is blacked out even though it doesn’t have a photo of a scantily-clad woman on it but a graphic composed of a woman in a one-piece bathing suit and the Penthouse cover is blacked out even though the person on it is wearing lingerie, both of which were on the top shelf so that no child could possibly see, yet, the ESPN cover showing a completely naked woman with one hand strategically covering her breast is at floor level for everyone to see.

The clerk behind the counter merely worked there and probably had nothing to do with the store’s policy to black-out the Playboy and Penthouse covers while leaving ESPN out in the open for all to see, so I wasn’t about to question or harass him about the store policy.

The ESPN magazine was far more explicit and accessible to children.  So, what’s the point of covering over Playboy and Penthouse?  It makes no sense to me.

I just don’t get it;  if you do, God Bless you.