Students smeared by Rolling Stone gang rape story speak out
“Unbelievable”
The Rolling Stone rape story debacle keeps getting worse.
We now have a ton of information about how Sabrina Erdely and her team lashed together their potentially libelous tome about a victim named Jackie, and those who sought to silence her. We know that Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity targeted by the story, is exploring its legal options, and we know that nobody involved on Rolling Stone’s end is going to suffer any real consequences.
What we’ve been missing—at least until now—are faces for the names of those who have been harmed by Rolling Stone’s negligent reporting.
Ryan Duffin, identified as “Randall” in the article, and Alex Stock, identified as “Andrew,” both played significant roles in the story Jackie spun for Erdely and that Erdely in turn published.
In her statements to Erdely, Jackie said that she made contact with three friends the night of the alleged rape. Jackie called Ryan late that night, and when he met up with her he says that he saw no physical evidence on Jackie’s person to suggest that she had been attacked. Jackie told Erdely a completely different story, and said that Ryan had indicated that he wouldn’t speak to Rolling Stone about what happened because he “didn’t want to be part of [Jackie’s] shitshow.”
Alex’s time in Erdely’s spotlight paints an equally callous picture that Alex flatly denies. Jackie claims that Alex hedged on reporting Jackie’s alleged assault because he was concerned that his social life, and the social lives of his friends, would take a hit if members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity found out.
Neither Ryan nor Alex were ever contacted by Erdely, and yet both somehow managed to play key roles in Erdely’s narrative. Both recently sat down with Megyn Kelly to sound off on how they were portrayed in the controversial article:
At this point, I’m not sure that it does anybody any good to ask those who unwittingly have been thrust into the spotlight whether or not they think there’s anything to Jackie’s as-of-now-debunked story; I do, however, see great value in putting names and faces up on the screen and running stories about how one sloppy journalist with an agenda can derail even temporarily the lives of people who never asked to be a part of the narrative.
The fact of the matter is that the internet is forever, and this story will never go away. Ryan, Alex, and the other members of the UVA community implicated in this story will never be able to scrub off the mud. The least we can do is pass them the megaphone and let them have a say about which direction the story heads next.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
For those of us who don’t listen to that clip, note that “Randall” was the guy Jackie was catfishing with the imaginary boyfriend “Drew” to try to make him jealous, the same “Drew” who she claimed took her to the fraternity and arranged the claimed gang rape.
Except back then, “Drew’s” name was “Haven Monahan.” He didn’t become “Drew” until the Rolling Stone article.
I think Ryan was way too easy on Jackie in this interview (perhaps he feels some guilt about his bizarre role in this?) but Alex Stock came down hard on her. He said that this was not the first time Jackie had made up stories.
Rape is so traumatic that even imaginary rape victims have to be protected.
“…how one sloppy journalist with an agenda can derail even temporarily the lives of people who never asked to be a part of the narrative.”
Except that is a TERRIBLE example of de minimis writing.
It was NOT “one sloppy journalist”. It IS an entire industry with a mission…destroy American culture. In this particular instance, it is “Destroy American men, especially in higher education”.
There is a “rape culture” on American campi. It is a hysterical, delusion-based culture that exceeds by orders of magnitude the fever and malice of any “witch hunt” or any reality of any of the inquisitions of ACTUAL history.
campi?
This isn’t a sloppy journalist is is a malevolent journalist. She is out to damage people to raise her status. She has used the supposed even-handedness protection of being a news person and mixed it with an agenda driven pretext of ruining the reputations and futures of innocent victims.
My pointssss precisely.
She wanted to raise her status. How would her fabulism raise her status? With whom? To what end? The answers are the “rape culturists” on American campi and to the end they are campaigning toward: the degradation and demonetization of men.
She did NOT do this by herself, or against a ‘news’ culture of concern for the truth or the reputation of individuals or their organizations. She’s just a fish in a school, and they all turn, dart, dive in concert. They all know the Collectivist mode of thinking, and they all follow it.
So, again, this was NOT “a sloppy journalist”. This is an entire machine…a combine.
You used the words “even-handedness” and “news person” in reference to a Rolling Stone writer. I had to pick myself up off the floor, take a deep breath the calm the splitting laughter-induced pain in my side, and then wipe the coffee off my face, monitor and keyboard.
That rag is nothing but a mouthpiece for Marxist idiots, and I hope this episode costs them dearly. Maybe they’ll be driven completely out of business and finally stop poisoning young minds.
This certainly is far from an isolated incident in the world of glossy journalism. Indeed, too good to check out narratives have long infected publications that once valued accuracy above all else.
In 1996 The New Yorker ran a feature article by staff writer Mark Singer. Singer was the reporter who broke the “scoop” that Dan Quayle hsd been a drug dealer. It seems Singer’s only source was Brett Kimberlin, who was resident in federal prison on a domestic terrorism conviction when he had told Singer his story years earlier. By 1996, Singer had written a bio of Kimberlin, which the magazine was promoting. What I recall from the 1996 article, which was a rehashing of Kimberlin’s long history, was that Singer specifically refused to apologize for defaming Quayle on the word of a notorious con. It seems that
larger truths were involved and the story still felt right to Singer- and presumably to his editors and to the readers of The New Yorker.
Since Jackie lied, her picture should be made public, too.
Yes. Made public as she walks into court to be sued!
Where’s Jackie’s picture? And that of the “journalist” and “editors” responsible for this travesty?
Actually, what I really want to see is an opinion by the Supreme Court making it clear that this type of “journalism” (I would call it slander per se) committed against private persons is actionable, with a suggestion (possibly in a footnote) that a public person might also have a cause of action.
That’s a very good question. Is there a Jackie?
https://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/erdely.jpg?w=450
There’s your fabulist. It looks like she has a sad…
2014 was the “year of the Liberal Lie” and 2015 is following in its footsteps.
Jackie did things that were wrong and should have never been done, but without the megaphone that this person provided no one would ever know who Jackie was or care what she looked like. FWIW Jackie’s picture can be easily found on the internet.
And don’t forget the university sponsored political “self-help” groups instead of referring girls to medical and mental health professionals and the police. Who is supervising them? Where are the parents?
OK, here’s a set of hard truths…
The university “rape culturists” are HATERS. They are zealots. They believe…indeed, are the origins of…the myth that men are just “rapey”. “All PIV (penis in vagina) sex is rape. OK?”. A lot of them really buy into that bullshit. They live it, love it, and they indoctrinate their students in it.
They don’t trust police or due process. WAY too much “freedom”, “rights”, and “evidence” goin’ on there. They knee-jerk in the direction of there being a “victim” and a “rapist”, AND in protecting the “victim”. FROM the demands of due process.
They HATE and deplore parents. Parents are not “professionals”. The rape culturists ARE. They have advanced degrees in things like “women’s studies”. They have extensive investments in their delusions and hatreds.
That’s just not true, Amy Miller.
They outed themselves back in early December last year; their faces appeared everywhere from CBS News to the UK Daily Mail.
I get that LI doesn’t have the advantage of the proverbial layers and layers of fact-checkers, but we do have Google, yes?
Jackie’s name is already floating around the web. She’s ruined her life for now at least. I am more concerned with the lack of personal consequences to the reporter and her editors.
It is interesting that Sabrina Erdely was a college classmate of Stephen Glass. Glass went so far as to falsify documentation on his sources when he wrote too good to be true stories for The New Republic in the late 90s. The Glass piece that I recall best was a profile of a meeting of the national convention of young Republicans. A political acquaintance was a national officer and what Glass reported he had seen and heard didn’t pass my smell test.) When the falsehoods came out, Glass was promptly fired and his editors apologized to readers for being so trusting and not checking Glass’s sources more closely.
Compare that to how both Erdely and her editors knowingly waived journalistic procedures that were specifically designed to prevent false stories from being published. Then note that no one employed at Rolling Stone has lost a days pay over it.
Erdely would probably argue that Glass was after personal fame while she was promoting larger “truths” but the bottom line is that both of them were trashing reputations via transparent falsehoods that catered to the stereotypes the left holds.
” She’s ruined her life for now at least.”
yeah, but since she resorted to such a stunt, it seems her life was already a mess. This confrontation MIGHT be a step out of the ruin, if she had an ounce of pride/shame.
OR … there are no doubt victimologists that will take her in, understand that she only acted out of her oppressed male rape society damaged ego, and gladly feed her the milk of feminist kindness. That’s the fake but still real world they seem to live in.
That is why they never really apologize to their victims, they know these frat rats are guilty at heart. Having acquired national fame, the narrative must live on. So they can’t admit their brand of feminism is a hateful manipulative sham.
They are all rolling stones … can’t be held down by those they roll over. keep on rollin’ heh
Ya.. her name is Jacqueline Coakley. I’m not sure why the press is so hesitant to print her name now that we know she is a liar and her actions caused immeasurable harm on the innocent.
“…and running stories about how one sloppy journalist with an agenda can derail even temporarily the lives of people who never asked to be a part of the narrative.”
Oh, the irony.
Jackie should be in jail, waiting her turn to be featured on an episode of LockUp.
Above all, know this: you can believe nothing said by two college age boys being interviewed by Megyn Kelly. It is no one’s fault but Mother Nature’s that they haven’t sufficient blood pressure for normal cognitive functioning.
I love her. Um…for her mind. Yah. That’s it…
I thought I loved her but she kisses funny, a lot like Janet Reno, another bad kisser.
OK, I don’t believe you EVER kissed Janet Reno. You are not that tall…
Typo. That should read Janet Napolitano.
(In real life I’m 6’6″ – lol)
They may not be able to ever scrape off the mud. But I hope they sue both the magazine, the University, and the vicious shrew masquerading as a journalist and receive enough money to at least cover the mud in designer clothes.