This case involves the suing of Rolling Stone by the University of Virginia Dean for the publishing of false and deceptive information regarding a rape on campus and the following statements made of the ethnical nature of UVA dealing with rape allegations on campus. An annotated story lays out the errors of what Rolling Stone published.
The annotated errors are sloppy reporting negligence’s. How could Rolling Stone published an article that included the name of the boy involved, “Drew”, when that character was fabricated? The journalist should have looked further into the case, finding evidence that the name was no one involved in the fraternity or work place that Jackie described. Also, there were sloppy errors in which the essence of the fraternity was altered. This included the function of the party and the brotherhood initiation. Jackie also provided altered evidence on different occasions. She would say that she was raped by different amount of boys, that her dress had blood on it, and that she escaped through doors that did not even exist on the house. Her friends that came to her aid the night of rape said that it was not as dramatic as Jackie described and that the portrayal of them in the article made them look heartless and unsupportive of Jackie in her time of need. The group of friends said that they were supportive and did not once talk about the reputation of the school or themselves when conversations of what to do next were brought up.
I think that Rolling Stone failed to do any extensive research in this case because they wanted a story that would support their assumptions that UVA did not handle rape on campus in a serious matter but rather “pushed it under the rug.” I am not assuming that Jackie made up the entire horrible crime that happened to her, but I also believe the flaws in her testimonies and the article itself.
It seemed the journalist did more research accusing UVA of not handling rape cases in a serious matter than telling this particular story truthfully. The fact that Rolling Stone released the derogatory edited photo of the Dean of Students shows that this article could have been written in direct misconduct. I believe that the photo was way out of line.
Rolling Stone should have made sure that all the information was correct before publishing this article. I believe that a separate article could have been with the accusations that UVA does not handle rape situations seriously on campus because there was sufficient evidence to support this that was not fully based on this particular case. Sexual assault is a serious matter, and all publications involving this crime should want to get the WHOLE truth before releasing any information to the public.
Journalism & Law 