In late 2014, reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely's article, “A Rape on Campus,” was published by Rolling Stone. In the months following its release, the accuracy of the information provided by Jackie, the main subject of Erdely's reporting, would come into question and be determined to be inaccurate. The article, along with Erdely's journalistic ability, would be discredited. This essay will look at the missteps Erdely made in her sourcing and verification processes by observing and critically analyzing the text of "A Rape on Campus, identifying and discussing potential red herrings within.
I feel compelled to preface this essay by saying that I don't envy Erdley's position as a journalist and have serious misgivings as to questioning the account of a survivor of sexual assault. Erdley herself states that "studies indicate that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports." That said, Erdley has a responsibility to confirm the facts from a journalistic perspective and seek out the truth. It's her job to be concerned with the eight percent, fully exploring the information provided by Jackie. It's work that is arguably more critical when dealing with such sensitive topics and in doing so, defends survivors by amplifying their voices. The aim isn't to question the allegations presented by Jackie as much as it is to explore Erdley's shortcomings, which allowed inaccurate information to reach the public. Her shortcomings not only discredit her journalism and Rolling Stone but become a tool with which to discredit survivors, with stories like those of Kathryn Russell, Emily Renda, Liz Seccuro which deserve to be heard and believed by conflating them with Jackie's. Similar to our conversation earlier in the semester on Ben Smith's publication of the Trump Dossier and the outcomes possible if the information had been incorrect, "A Rape on Campus" becomes "fake news," a weapon which can be against survivors. "When serious and conscientious outlets publish information for whose veracity they cannot vouch, they make it easy for critics of the press to brand all reporting with which they disagree as simply 'fake news'" (Graham).
Perhaps the most critical journalistic error is Erdely's overused of Jackie's account of what happened at the Phi Kappa Psi party. Harrowing as it is, it is assertion, not verification. The fact remains that Jackie (with no last name) serves as the only source on the record to support her claims. Anyone who knows her story has heard it directly from Jackie herself: Erdely, Jackie's friends, her mother, Emily Renda and the members of One Less. Erdley has a lot of potential for corroboration from eyewitnesses but never appears to make the jump from assertion to verification. She could have interviewed Jackie and Drew’s co-workers, learning more about their relationship dynamic both before and after the attack, the character of both individuals or the circumstances around Jackie quitting. Similarly, she could have spoken to other members of Jackie’s anthropology group, who might provide insight on one of her attackers or account for her absence following the attack. The Phi Psi partygoers who were still present after 3 a.m. may have seen or heard an injured, distressed woman. Erdley gives a reason why Randall declined an interview, but what about Cindy or Andy? She never seems to follow these threads and minimizes the sources who can corroborate Jackie's story. She frequently makes the error of making decisions that keep us in the dark.
One such decision is her carelessness with names and overuse of pseudonyms. She never provides us with a good reason for calling someone Drew or Stacey. Is she protecting Jackie and her friends from being identified and potential retaliation? Perhaps the names are changed to protect against potential legal ramifications. These sources ultimately act in the same fashion as anonymous ones, whose information we cannot verify or assess in a meaningful way. Does Erdley introduce us to Alexandria Pinkleton twice? The reason behind these decisions is never transparent and puts to onus on the reader to generate a satisfactory explanation, which is a journalistic failure. In the case of Pinkleton, it feels like a deliberate manipulation of a source, making third-year party girl Alexandria appear as a different person from Jackie’s friend Alex to the unwitting reader, if it is not an outright careless error. Confidence is possible but seems unlikely and worth indicating.
The second half of the article heavily features University of Virginia Dean Nicole Emaro's quotes, but Erdley states that Emaro was not made available for comment. These quotes are from Jackie's recounting of the meetings, making Jackie yet again the sole source of information (save for Emaro's quote on the boys graduating, which Pinkleton corroborates). A trail of e-mails is mentioned but unexplored. Appointments made with Emaro and a UVA psychiatrist. Was Erdley given these e-mails? Did she confirm these appointments actually took place with UVA staff? Much of her reporting amounts to asking "says who?" She later uses direct quotes again, this time from a trustees meeting. How did she source these quotes? Was she present at the meeting? She does not tell us if she was. Who are the experts that later spoke with Rolling Stone? What are they experts on?
Perhaps the closest analog to “A Rape on Campus” in 2018 is The New York Times reporting on Harvey Weinstein. Concerned with similar allegations, Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey's reporting corroborates the claims against Weinstein from multiple fully named sources, is upfront about anonymous sources but provides the information that they are from the Weinstein Company and contains a statement from Weinstein himself. Similarly to "A Rape on Campus," Ashley Judd and her mother, Naomi Judd, confirmed their information for the Times (Kantor and Twohey). A follow-up article echoed the Judds. Tomi-Ann Roberts and her mother Asta, Katherine Kendall and her mother Kay, as well as Judith Godrèche and her father Alain and Dawn Dunning and her father Rick, corroborated the allegations against Weinstein (Kantor and Abrams). Erdely failed to give Jackie's mother a name, let alone interview her. That's not to say these sources make the truth in the Weinstein story "more truthful," but given the number of corroborating evidence, the events seem much more likely to have occurred, much less able to have holes poked.
Erdley follows in Brian Thevanot’s footsteps and fails to open the proverbial refrigerator. Those involved in the publishing of the article made similar mistakes in not doing enough digging to those which led to the publishing blunders and eventual downfalls of Janet Cook and Judith Miller. However, when Erdley does provide full names and statistics, they are appear to be factual and verifiable. People are who the article says they are. "A Rape on Campus" still holds up as a fair and factual spotlight of UVA’s sexual assault problem without Jackie's input, albeit an arguably less powerful one. It is this that leads me to believe that Erdley was not trying to be intentionally deceptive, but instead got caught up in making Jackie’s story work within the framework of "A Rape on Campus." It's this chase which would cause her to sabotage everyone involved. Works Cited
Erdely, Sabrina Rubin. "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA." Rolling Stone. RollingStone, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.. Internet Archive.
Graham, David A. "The Trouble With Publishing the Trump Dossier." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 11 Jan. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
Kantor, Jodi, and Megan Twohey. "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Oct. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
Kantor, Jodi, and Rachel Abrams. "Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
I feel compelled to preface this essay by saying that I don't envy Erdley's position as a journalist and have serious misgivings as to questioning the account of a survivor of sexual assault. Erdley herself states that "studies indicate that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports." That said, Erdley has a responsibility to confirm the facts from a journalistic perspective and seek out the truth. It's her job to be concerned with the eight percent, fully exploring the information provided by Jackie. It's work that is arguably more critical when dealing with such sensitive topics and in doing so, defends survivors by amplifying their voices. The aim isn't to question the allegations presented by Jackie as much as it is to explore Erdley's shortcomings, which allowed inaccurate information to reach the public. Her shortcomings not only discredit her journalism and Rolling Stone but become a tool with which to discredit survivors, with stories like those of Kathryn Russell, Emily Renda, Liz Seccuro which deserve to be heard and believed by conflating them with Jackie's. Similar to our conversation earlier in the semester on Ben Smith's publication of the Trump Dossier and the outcomes possible if the information had been incorrect, "A Rape on Campus" becomes "fake news," a weapon which can be against survivors. "When serious and conscientious outlets publish information for whose veracity they cannot vouch, they make it easy for critics of the press to brand all reporting with which they disagree as simply 'fake news'" (Graham).
Perhaps the most critical journalistic error is Erdely's overused of Jackie's account of what happened at the Phi Kappa Psi party. Harrowing as it is, it is assertion, not verification. The fact remains that Jackie (with no last name) serves as the only source on the record to support her claims. Anyone who knows her story has heard it directly from Jackie herself: Erdely, Jackie's friends, her mother, Emily Renda and the members of One Less. Erdley has a lot of potential for corroboration from eyewitnesses but never appears to make the jump from assertion to verification. She could have interviewed Jackie and Drew’s co-workers, learning more about their relationship dynamic both before and after the attack, the character of both individuals or the circumstances around Jackie quitting. Similarly, she could have spoken to other members of Jackie’s anthropology group, who might provide insight on one of her attackers or account for her absence following the attack. The Phi Psi partygoers who were still present after 3 a.m. may have seen or heard an injured, distressed woman. Erdley gives a reason why Randall declined an interview, but what about Cindy or Andy? She never seems to follow these threads and minimizes the sources who can corroborate Jackie's story. She frequently makes the error of making decisions that keep us in the dark.
One such decision is her carelessness with names and overuse of pseudonyms. She never provides us with a good reason for calling someone Drew or Stacey. Is she protecting Jackie and her friends from being identified and potential retaliation? Perhaps the names are changed to protect against potential legal ramifications. These sources ultimately act in the same fashion as anonymous ones, whose information we cannot verify or assess in a meaningful way. Does Erdley introduce us to Alexandria Pinkleton twice? The reason behind these decisions is never transparent and puts to onus on the reader to generate a satisfactory explanation, which is a journalistic failure. In the case of Pinkleton, it feels like a deliberate manipulation of a source, making third-year party girl Alexandria appear as a different person from Jackie’s friend Alex to the unwitting reader, if it is not an outright careless error. Confidence is possible but seems unlikely and worth indicating.
The second half of the article heavily features University of Virginia Dean Nicole Emaro's quotes, but Erdley states that Emaro was not made available for comment. These quotes are from Jackie's recounting of the meetings, making Jackie yet again the sole source of information (save for Emaro's quote on the boys graduating, which Pinkleton corroborates). A trail of e-mails is mentioned but unexplored. Appointments made with Emaro and a UVA psychiatrist. Was Erdley given these e-mails? Did she confirm these appointments actually took place with UVA staff? Much of her reporting amounts to asking "says who?" She later uses direct quotes again, this time from a trustees meeting. How did she source these quotes? Was she present at the meeting? She does not tell us if she was. Who are the experts that later spoke with Rolling Stone? What are they experts on?
Perhaps the closest analog to “A Rape on Campus” in 2018 is The New York Times reporting on Harvey Weinstein. Concerned with similar allegations, Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey's reporting corroborates the claims against Weinstein from multiple fully named sources, is upfront about anonymous sources but provides the information that they are from the Weinstein Company and contains a statement from Weinstein himself. Similarly to "A Rape on Campus," Ashley Judd and her mother, Naomi Judd, confirmed their information for the Times (Kantor and Twohey). A follow-up article echoed the Judds. Tomi-Ann Roberts and her mother Asta, Katherine Kendall and her mother Kay, as well as Judith Godrèche and her father Alain and Dawn Dunning and her father Rick, corroborated the allegations against Weinstein (Kantor and Abrams). Erdely failed to give Jackie's mother a name, let alone interview her. That's not to say these sources make the truth in the Weinstein story "more truthful," but given the number of corroborating evidence, the events seem much more likely to have occurred, much less able to have holes poked.
Erdley follows in Brian Thevanot’s footsteps and fails to open the proverbial refrigerator. Those involved in the publishing of the article made similar mistakes in not doing enough digging to those which led to the publishing blunders and eventual downfalls of Janet Cook and Judith Miller. However, when Erdley does provide full names and statistics, they are appear to be factual and verifiable. People are who the article says they are. "A Rape on Campus" still holds up as a fair and factual spotlight of UVA’s sexual assault problem without Jackie's input, albeit an arguably less powerful one. It is this that leads me to believe that Erdley was not trying to be intentionally deceptive, but instead got caught up in making Jackie’s story work within the framework of "A Rape on Campus." It's this chase which would cause her to sabotage everyone involved. Works Cited
Erdely, Sabrina Rubin. "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA." Rolling Stone. RollingStone, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
Graham, David A. "The Trouble With Publishing the Trump Dossier." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 11 Jan. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
Kantor, Jodi, and Megan Twohey. "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Oct. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
Kantor, Jodi, and Rachel Abrams. "Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment