Rolling
Stone Gives Journalism a Black Eye
Commentary
by Sanford D. Horn
April 12,
2015
Rape, by its
definition is a violent act – a crime committed by a person or persons against
a victim – defiling the victim against his/her will to such an extent the
victim suffers physically and mentally for an undetermined period of time. This
includes the potential trauma of reliving it over and over in his/her mind and
possibly in a courtroom – if the victim is lucky enough to have his/her
attacker caught and identified.
The only act
possibly worse than the crime itself it when someone lies about a rape. It
cheapens the legitimacy of actual victims who need medical attention and legal
assistance to bring their attackers to justice. It also forever damages the
reputation and life of the falsely accused.
These
scenarios have been far too frequent over the past several years thanks to
social media and a 24 hour news cycle.
In the most
recent notorious case, irresponsible journalism is as much, if not more, to
blame than the lying accuser. This, of course, is the fictitious story written
by Rolling Stone magazine’s Sabrina
Rubin Erdely for their November 2014 issue entitled “A Rape on Campus.” This
fabricated 9,000 word story detailed the alleged victim, “Jackie” and a gang
rape she accused seven members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the
University of Virginia of committing.
Rolling Stone magazine, founded by Jann
Wenner, is not nearly the edgy periodical it once was dating back to its initial
issue, November 9, 1967. It has become an irresponsible publication damaging
the reputation of its profession, the accuser, as well as the accused.
While not as
egregious as the Duke University rape case against three members of its men’s
lacrosse team in 2006 insofar as the legal implications for the accused, there
are still victims and perpetrators in the UVA case.
With the
Duke case, a publication was not the responsible party for levying charges
against the accused, the specific person who lied was. The names of the three
athletes were dragged through the mud interminably and their lives became a
waking nightmare until it was determined they were falsely accused.
Nevertheless, their reputations in tatters, rebuilding them is a near
impossibility – much akin to the strength of a newspaper’s retraction story
buried on page 50 after a front page exposé already destroyed the accused.
In the case
of Erdely’s overwhelmingly irresponsible work of fiction, she merely damaged
her reputation, that of her employer, as well as that of the so-called accuser “Jackie.”
Fortunately, the names of the accused never appeared in print as the accuser
opted not to cooperate with police in Charlottesville. It begs the question as
to why not. Wouldn’t any crime victim want justice? Wouldn’t any crime victim
do whatever possible to assist law enforcement in the apprehension of the
culprits? As that did not occur, the first red flag should have been raised by Rolling Stone or at least by Erdely.
Erdely must
have had an agenda when concocting this story; an ax to grind; a desire to expose
the rape culture that may or may not exist on college campuses. While there is
no doubt most colleges and universities do all they can to sweep these crimes
and others under the rug in an effort to keep the student population from
fleeing the campus and keep new students matriculating, social media and
legitimate news sources do what they can to prevent that from happening, and
that’s a good thing.
Sadly, it
took years to unearth the disgraceful sex crimes and molestations committed by
former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Fortunately he was stopped, but not before dozens of boys were victimized by
this filthy pervert.
Make no
mistake, this story by Erdely will give real rape victims pause to consider whether
or not to report the crime committed against them for fear it will become the
next UVA case. More victims will wonder if they will be taken seriously by
police both on and off campus.
At the same
time, more males on campus will fear they could be the next victimized, falsely
accused patsy of an angry co-ed with issues, and this will only create a more
tension-filled atmosphere on more and more campuses.
Because of
Erdely’s apparent agenda, her’s was a single-sourced screed, confirming nothing
with anyone else, getting no alleged accusers names – which turned out to be a
good thing – see the Duke case, nor did Erdely ever confirm “Jackie’s” true
identity. Little by little Erdely’s story unraveled until ultimately there was
nothing left but a handful of thread – and egg on the faces of Erdely, her
editor Sean Woods, who also did a woeful job in ensuring Erdely’s accuracy and
bona fide sourcing, as well as Rolling
Stone itself.
Sadly, both
Erdely and Woods remain on the payroll at the magazine, when in reality they
should be on the unemployment line. As a professional journalist and writer
nothing less should be expected were the same unprofessional actions taken by
this scribe. Not only is Erdely still employed at Rolling Stone, she has yet to offer an apology to the UVA Phi Kappa
Psi fraternity.
Phi Kappa
Psi intends to sue Rolling Stone and they
should go after the irresponsible tome for all they can get, and then donate
the proceeds to rape victims’ charities. Bankrupt the magazine to send a
message to the rest of the journalistic community that this kind of
irresponsible behavior is unacceptable.
Additionally,
reverting back to referring to the lack of fraternity members’ names being
published as a good thing, the names of accused
rapists should not appear in print or on the air until a guilty verdict is
rendered. Once the rapist label is hung on someone, guilty or not, that label
will hang around the neck like an albatross in perpetuity, thus ruining a
person’s life interminably.
Make no
mistake, this call for protecting the identity of the accused should not be
mistaken as a sign of being soft on rapists. In fact, I support the death
penalty for rapists, as the crime they commit alters a person’s life
irrevocably in ways unimaginable.
Rolling Stone should be ashamed for printing
an unverified story that could have had farther reaching implications. It
should also be ashamed for keeping Erdely and Woods on the payroll for their
egregious irresponsibility of masquerading as journalists.
The
continuing existence of a free press is one of the cornerstones of the
foundation of the United States of America. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “Were
it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers,
or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer
the latter.”
It is vital
that responsible journalists, writers, scribes, and bloggers shine the light of
day on the irresponsible of this profession and drive them from the industry.
The readers – those who spend their hard earned money to freely choose which
publications will earn their trust – must send a message to the irresponsible
that their services are no longer required.
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and
educator living in Westfield, IN.
No comments:
Post a Comment