• Home
  • About me: Jim Fitzpatrick
  • Contact

JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Pete Tamburello (Jan. 17, 1932 – March 31, 2015): Eagle Scout, Korean War veteran, mobster
Opening Day: And what a day! »

Rolling Stone magazine: Rolling into ignominy and irrelevancy

April 5, 2015 by jimmycsays

You could see this coming four months ago: The Rolling Stone story’s about “Jackie,” the otherwise anonymous University of Virginia student who claimed to have been gang raped at a fraternity party has officially and completely blown up in the magazine’s face.

Rolling Stone today retracted the story and published on its website a 13,000-word report written by three people with the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. Rolling Stone asked the journalism school to investigate the story last December, after other publications, including the Washington Post, raised significant questions about its credibility.

The journalism school’s report said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the alleged assault, which supposedly occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on Sept. 28, 2012.

The Rolling Stone writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. relied almost exclusively on Jackie’s account and made only token attempts to verify it.

sabrina_bio

Sabrina Rubin Erdely

In abandoning basic journalistic methods, Erdely not only anonymously quoted three of Jackie’s former friends who supposedly knew about the assault but also used quotes, supposedly from the friends, that Jackie provided. Erdely didn’t get the quotes herself; she let Jackie put words in their mouths and published those words!

Jackie refused to give Erdely the full names of the three friends, and Erdely did not attempt to independently contact them. The writer and her principal editor, Sean Woods, got around the identity problem by using pseudonyms for the friends. They did the same thing for the alleged organizer of the gang rape, a man Erdely referred to as “Drew,” whom Erdely inquired about but also failed to contact.   

Failing to contact the friends, the investigative report said, was a key element in the story’s faulty foundation.

“In hindsight,” the report said, “the most consequential decision Rolling Stone made was to accept that Erdely had not contacted the three friends who spoke with Jackie on the night she said she was raped. That was the reporting path, if taken, that would have almost certainly led the magazine’s editors to change plans.”

**

I wrote about this back in December, when Rolling Stone acknowledged that there were “discrepancies” between Jackie’s account and facts that had been uncovered since the article appeared.

In response to a comment at the bottom of that post, I wrote this sentence: 

My guess is that Jann Wenner, co-founder of the magazine and still the editor in chief, will fire just about everyone who was involved in reporting and editing the story.

Unbelievably, astonishingly, Wenner told The New York Times that no one would lose their jobs — not Erdely, not Woods, not managing editor Will Dana, who raised no objections.

The Times said that Wenner “acknowledged the piece’s flaws but said that it represented an isolated and unusual episode.”

will

Will Dana

For his part, Dana said the following in a three-paragraph introduction to the Columbia School of Journalism report:

“We are…committing ourselves to a series of recommendations about journalistic practices that are spelled out in the report. We would like to apologize to our readers and to all of those who were damaged by our story and the ensuing fallout, including members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and UVA administrators and students.”

Tonight, I read the Columbia report, and it is appalling.

Consider this excerpt, for example:

Stronger policy and clearer staff understanding in at least three areas might have changed the final outcome:

Pseudonyms…Pseudonyms are inherently undesirable in journalism. They introduce fiction and ask readers to trust that this is the only instance in which a publication is inventing details at its discretion. Their use in this case was a crutch – it allowed the magazine to evade coming to terms with reporting gaps. Rolling Stone should consider banning them. If its editors believe pseudonyms are an indispensable tool for its forms of narrative writing, the magazine should consider using them much more rarely and only after robust discussion about alternatives, with dissent encouraged.

Checking Derogatory Information. Erdely and Woods made the fateful agreement not to check with the three friends. If the fact-checking department had understood that such a practice was unacceptable, the outcome would almost certainly have changed.

The report also lambasted Woods, the principal editor, and Dana, the managing editor.

Of Woods, the report said:

sean-woods

Sean Woods

“Sean Woods…might have prevented the effective retraction of Jackie’s account by pressing his writer to close the gaps in her reporting. He started his career in music journalism but had been editing complex reported features at Rolling Stone for years. Investigative reporters working on difficult, emotive or contentious stories often have blind spots. It is up to their editors to insist on more phone calls, more travel, more time, until the reporting is complete. Woods did not do enough.”

Of Dana, it said:

“Dana might have looked more deeply into the story drafts he read, spotted the reporting gaps and insisted that they be fixed. He did not.”

**

What a horrible day for journalism. And, perhaps more important, what a fateful day for Rolling Stone.

By itself, the phony story would have badly damaged Rolling Stone’s credibility for a long time to come. But by failing to fire any or all of the three principal players in this journalistic fraud — the writer, the story editor and the managing editor — the magazine has effectively followed its admission of cheating with a kick to the readers’ and the public’s face.

For me, an Arizona resident summed it up best in a comment posted on The New York Times’ website:

“It’s pretty obvious that nobody at Rolling Stone thinks they actually did anything wrong. This should disqualify them from ever being considered a ‘news source’ again.” 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

9 Responses

  1. on April 6, 2015 at 1:13 am John Blakeney

    As a journalist, I am sure you are concerned and offended by the actions (perhaps better stated as the lack thereof) of the team at Rolling Stone. As a reader and customer, I could care less. I put the Rolling Stone in the same category as MAD and the National Enquirer. Garbage!!!


    • on April 6, 2015 at 7:47 am jimmycsays

      I see you’ve got yourself a Derby hat , John, just in time for May2…What about a sportcoat? See you in steerage?


  2. on April 6, 2015 at 2:02 am Larry Luper

    Jim, you are right. This is unbelievable. Journalistic integrity has been watered down by television, internet and print media. Equally sad is the likelihood that too many will not care.


  3. on April 6, 2015 at 11:02 am John Altevogt

    The refusal to hold anyone accountable, indeed even indicating that the reporter would be given future assignments, should be a death knell for the publication. Unfortunately, it won’t be since the absence of accountability seems to be the defining characteristic of our age.


  4. on April 6, 2015 at 11:05 am John Altevogt

    Here’s the link to the actual report, not the one contained in Rolling Stone.

    http://article2.cjr.org/investigation/rolling_stone_investigation.php


  5. on April 6, 2015 at 3:11 pm Steve Byrd

    Fitz, I remember waking up at 3 am on a Sunday morning in a cold sweat and DRIVING 60 miles roundtrip down the 101 from Universal City to downtown Los Angeles to fix a goddam BRIEF for the LA Times because I was so freakin’ scared that I misspelled a name before I turned it in on Monday…That’s how seriously I took my responsibilities as a journalist and working for that newspaper…

    This “writer” and her editors have my utmost contempt because after 20 years, she knew better as a professional…she cut corners, wasn’t objective and didn’t care enough to make sure the work that held her byline – the personal bond with the reader that she wrote the truth in the best/fullest way possible – was going to hold up to the test of time…

    And no one at the Rolling Stone is getting FIRED over this?!?…When thousands of great journalists who never had a chance to sniff the high life of magazines have gotten the boot because of corporate greed, selfishness and short-sightedness?!?…

    Shame!…


    • on April 6, 2015 at 4:12 pm John Altevogt

      We need more of this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.


    • on April 6, 2015 at 8:42 pm jimmycsays

      Very true on all points, Steve. I don’t ever remember driving down to The Star to make a “fix” but I certainly remember lying in bed and wondering if I had fixed this problem or that problem and calling the copy desk to make sure — if the last copy editor hadn’t gone home.


      • on April 7, 2015 at 11:53 am Steve Byrd

        I took some of your late-night calls from the copy booth, Fitz…*grin*…Kept telling you that the paper had already shoved for the night – no more changes…*wink*…



Comments are closed.

  • Pages

    • About me: Jim Fitzpatrick
    • Contact
  • Archives

    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 562 other subscribers

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC
    • Join 562 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: