Discussion
  • Read More
    Robby SoaveAnna Merlan
    12/01/14 4:19pm

    What Anna leaves out is that I already wrote a story that presumed the allegations were true. Last week, I wrote that expulsion would not have been a sufficient punishment for the UVA rapists: http://reason.com/archives/2014/...

    After writing that, I began hearing other journalists calling into question some of the details. (Indeed, I've received numerous emails from people alleging they know people at UVA connected to the story who say it's false, and am working to follow-up on these leads to judge their credibility). In the meantime, it seemed to me like the responsible thing was merely to note that some dispute the veracity of the Rolling Stone story. I'm not saying I don't believe it—and I repeatedly stated that I have no reason to distrust the author—I'm merely saying that people are raising questions.

    Do you seriously think I should have not reported that? I personally don't believe in shielding my readers from news.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Anna MerlanRobby Soave
      12/01/14 4:25pm

      Hi Robby! Thanks for stopping by! One small correction: I don't think you've ever "reported" a goddamn thing in your life. (And because I know you're going to do this, either here or in my Twitter mentions, which you and your friends are currently stink-clouding up with your Feelings, I have a master's degree in journalism from Columbia and I write investigative stories. Have done for years, both at Jezebel and before I got here. Thanks for asking!)

      Instead, I think, as I made clear above, that you're piggy-backing on the work of other people who are calling Erdely's story into question without a single shred of evidence. You don't get brownie points for saying *IF* the story is true *THEN* UVA should have called the cops. That's what any decent human being would suggest.

      But by all means, do some journalism! Follow up on those leads! Let's see it! Can't wait!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Queen of BithyniaRobby Soave
      12/01/14 4:28pm

      Ahh, good. It's always important to have people around "just raising questions".

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Anna MerlanAnna Merlan
    12/01/14 4:49pm

    In the interest of transparency, here's a message Richard Bradley just sent me on LinkedIn:

    "Now mostly retired"? Ouch. I'm actually the editor-in-chief of Worth, which is a magazine that apparently you don't read...And in fairness, you should also acknowledge that I'm skeptical because supposedly we know the names of two rapists, but they are never contacted.Cheers, Richard

    I've already corrected his job title in my piece, but let's drill down on his other point here, which alleges that Erdely never contacted Jackie's alleged rapists. That's not accurate. From the WaPo interview:

    She won't say, for example, whether she knows the names of Jackie's alleged attackers or whether in her reporting she approached "Drew," the alleged ringleader, for comment. She is bound to silence about those details, she said, by an agreement with Jackie, who "is very fearful of these men, in particular Drew. . . . She now considers herself an empty shell. So when it comes down to identifying them, she has a very hard time with that."

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      burnermehAnna Merlan
      12/01/14 5:35pm

      I don't know, if I were the EIC of Worth I might prefer to be known as mostly retired.

      I'm sure that editing Worth keeps your finger on the pulse of how the real world works.

      http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/21/wor...

      If you're in a carefully-selected group of 110,000 high-worth individuals, you'll receive the magazine on your doorstep for free. For the rest of us, we can buy a copy of Worth at the newstand for only $20.

      Cough.

      To qualify as a "high-worth" individual, you'll need a minimum household worth of $2 million and live in one of 11 major markets, including New York or San Francisco. Would it be terribly gauche of me to mention that $2 million isn't very much at all, especially in these markets? You could almost buy a two-bedroom tear-down in Pacific Palisades for $2 million, but it wouldn't be very nice. Maybe you could get a cute little two-bedroom in Manhattan for that.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      captain_spleenAnna Merlan
      12/01/14 8:35pm

      Stupid Bradley. Nobody reads magazines anymore.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Queen of BithyniaAnna Merlan
    12/01/14 4:10pm

    If I had a libertarian magazine, I'd be trying hard to avoid confirming the stereotype of libertarians as being strictly out of touch white men who mistake their own chin-stroking blatherings for insight.

    The editors at Reason are apparently taking a different tack.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Mrs.MaroneyQueen of Bithynia
      12/01/14 4:36pm

      "white men who mistake their own chin stroking blatherings for insight" is the most apt descriptor of this particular brand of libertarian politics I've ever read. Take all my internet points!!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Queen of BithyniaMrs.Maroney
      12/01/14 4:56pm

      The funny thing, for me at least, is that I'm sort of ambivalent about libertarianism, because of course you run into this kind of festering bullshit all the time, but they also do things like document police corruption and brutality and other abuses by government. Reason, which I do read here and there, tends to encapsulate the whole mess that is the libertarian movement by publishing large amounts of both (although its best critic of police overreach, Radley Balko, left it for HuffPo awhile back).

      I really don't understand what makes the people with legitimate complaints about the extent of government power willing to share a movement with all the Ron Pauls and goldbugs and kneejerk reactionaries that end up claiming seats on the libertarian bus.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    김치전!Anna Merlan
    12/01/14 4:14pm

    I don't believe that Chicago exists. I have never been there; no one I know has ever been there (except for my friend Jackie who changed planes at O'Hare, but she said it was real snowy so it could have been a different airport covered in white paint); "Chicago" is a funny word and "City of Broad Shoulders" rings real high on the ole bullshit meter, you know? STOP LYING TO AMERICA ABOUT CHICAGO.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CarlySparkles김치전!
      12/01/14 4:20pm

      are you sure Jackie wasn't just drunk when she changed planes?

      I've also never been to Chicago, and as we all know, once 2 people have a similar lack of experiences, everyone else is a liar.

      they even have chris pratt in on it.

      GIF

      ETA http://groupthink.jezebel.com/chicago-is-get...

      they've got EVERYONE in on it

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Emma Golddigger김치전!
      12/01/14 4:25pm

      My cousin's brother-in-law's coworker used to tell people he had a girlfriend in Chicago, and then later he admitted he was lying and he didn't have a girlfriend at all. Therefore, everyone who says Chicago exists is a dirty, filthy liar.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GemmabetaAnna Merlan
    12/01/14 4:02pm

    "something about this story doesn't feel right."

    That's some fine detective work there, Sherlock.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SamBargeGemmabeta
      12/01/14 4:06pm

      See, I was going to go with "tingly Spidey-senses" but Sherlock is much more appropriate.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      south2ndGemmabeta
      12/01/14 4:16pm

      Well, case closed then!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Anna MerlanAnna Merlan
    12/01/14 6:11pm

    Richard Bradley is profoundly baffled by Kinja, but he has emailed me a response blog post to my response blog post. This is like Inception only so much worse. Here it is! http://www.donotlink.com/cqjq

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      titania126Anna Merlan
      12/01/14 6:35pm

      I used to work for him! This is...typical.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      tangerinebk65titania126
      12/05/14 6:04pm

      As did I, many years ago, and I really liked and respected him. I'm not understanding why he's latched onto the "Women are certainly raped, but not nearly as much as they say they are" bandwagon. What could he possibly gain from this stance, other than deep hatred from all women working in media? He's very good at telling the writers he's slamming how important their topics are, in general, but that he doesn't believe specific ones. I personally know that this man does not hate women, so I'm confused.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Fishmongers' daughtersAnna Merlan
    12/01/14 4:28pm

    The real problem, Bradley writes is that "Emotion has outswept reason. Jackie, for example, alleges that one out of three women who go to UVA has been raped. This is silly."

    See, that's interesting. Because what I'm seeing here is a guy who has a gut reaction to a story he doesn't like and doesn't want to believe, and writing based on that gut reaction with nothing to back it up. That's pretty much the definition of "emotion outsweeping reason."

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Fawn LeibowitzAnna Merlan
      12/01/14 4:39pm

      We DO know Jackie's real name - it's Jackie. In the WaPo article, Erdely notes that she did not use a pseudonym for her.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Anna MerlanFawn Leibowitz
        12/01/14 5:02pm

        Yep, good point. Bradley writes "we never learn her identity" as though it's unusual. As though every other reported piece about rape includes the alleged victim's name and social security number and weight and height and current address and medication allergies.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      braintreeAnna Merlan
      12/01/14 4:36pm

      Not to mention the fucking sexist way he's discrediting the work of a woman journalist. She didn't do her homework, she's just letting her stupid lady-brain emotions run the show!

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        lemonistabraintree
        12/02/14 11:50am

        So any time you question a woman it's because you are sexist?

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        braintreelemonista
        12/02/14 11:58am

        "Reading comprehension! I said the sexist WAY he's discrediting her work. It's not sexist to discredit the work of a female journalist because she did a shitty job. It IS sexist, however, to toss aside the hours and hours of work that the female journalist performed and assume that she let her emotions get the best of her. Like he couldn't possibly trust that a woman would be able to do hard research."

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      emfish55Anna Merlan
      12/01/14 6:59pm

      One of the first conversations I had about the Rolling Stone article was with a friend from Charlottesville. She was as horrified as I was by the contents of the article, but she'd already spoken to her brother on the phone, and for some reason he was really interested in talking about the author. He kept telling my friend to look at Erdely's Twitter and Facebook accounts, which he thought were overly focused on "becoming famous" and using the Rolling Stone article as a platform for helping her career. He seemed ready to discredit the article as exaggeration simply because Erdely seems ambitious and self-promoting.

      Setting aside for the moment that ambition and self-promotion are necessary requirements of a career as journalist these days, and setting aside also the fact that ambition and self-promotion are much more likely to be seen as negative traits in a woman than in a man, this is still one of the weirdest responses to the article. I'm all for the skeptical read and considering the source, and I have no problem with someone arguing that we may not be getting the full story from the article (we never do, that's why you can't just read one article on a subject and declare yourself an expert). But it's weird to read something as horrifying as Jackie's account and immediately think, "Well I better look at this woman Erdely's Twitter feed to see if she is sufficiently self-effacing and humble enough for me to trust her journalism." WTF?

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Raoulemfish55
        12/02/14 10:02am

        Well, if the writer is using anonymous sources and basically saying "trust me", the only way you can evaluate his credibility sis to use secondary criteria. You seem to be upset at your brothers lack of blind faith in "The Rolling Stone".

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        emfish55Raoul
        12/02/14 10:10am

        Please read for comprehension. I'm not talking about my brother (who I don't even mention in my comment). I don't care about anyone's faith in Rolling Stone, blind or otherwise. Erdely's primary source was not anonymous (Jackie is her real name). Erdely has never said "trust me" and her reporting included talking to and reaching out to plenty of non-anonymous sources, including university reps. If you can't even read a comment on the internet without misquoting and missing basic facts, how can you expect to do the same with a 9,000 word article?

        Reply
        <