After saying Friday that his magazine had “misplaced” its trust in the subject of an explosive story on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, Rolling Stone’s managing editor took responsibility for the piece’s “failure.”
In a series of tweets, Will Dana elaborated on the unraveling story of “Jackie,” whose account of a gang rape at a UVA fraternity served as the centerpiece of a story published last month by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Erdely’s reporting on the story drew scrutiny, with some questioning her attempts to make contact with the alleged rapists.
Erdely and her editor initially stood by the story, but on Friday the magazine offered a partial retraction.
“In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced,” Dana wrote in a note on Rolling Stone’s website. “We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account.”
Some interpreted that as a way of shifting blame to “Jackie.” Not long after Dana’s note was published, he took to Twitter to clarify a few points.
1/I can’t explain the discrepancies between Jackie’s account and the counter statements made by Phi Psi.
— Will Dana (@wdana) December 5, 2014
2/The fact that there is a story that appears in Rolling Stone in which I don’t have complete confidence is deeply unsettling to me.
— Will Dana (@wdana) December 5, 2014
3/We made a judgment – the kind of judgement reporters and editors make every day. And in this case, our judgement was wrong.
— Will Dana (@wdana) December 5, 2014
4/ We should have either not made this agreement with Jackie…
— Will Dana (@wdana) December 5, 2014
5/…or worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.
— Will Dana (@wdana) December 5, 2014
6/ That failure is on us – not on her.
— Will Dana (@wdana) December 5, 2014
This makes me physically ill. We have no idea what exactly is false. What RS doesn’t trust and what they do.
Reading comments elsewhere (places full of gleeful trolls) is discouraging. Ugh.
Without question, this is the most inappropriate use of the Twitter medium ever. Jesus, if anything ever required a long piece of prose rather than not 144 character spurts, it’s this right here.
Could RS act any more despicably? The original statement reads “our trust in her was misplaced.” In other words, she lied to us. Yet they offer no specifics. And it’s not clear at all from the Wapo story what the facts are at this point. We’re in she said / he said territory. And then this: “4 / We should have either not made this agreement with Jackie… 5/…or worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.” So Rolling Stone lets story subjects dictate how they’re going to do journalism? It’s her fault you messed up? “The failure is on us” - except for these parts over here. Unfcking real. What horrible people.
Long piece of prose and full page ads in the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, …
I think it’s great that he wrote this at all – he’s absolutely right, it’s RS’s fault entirely for not doing the job of an investigative journalist or editor – but yeah, what a weird way to get the word out. Blame Jackie in one place, “correct” that impression elsewhere. Huh?
Edit: I was a bit harsh, they actually did 10x the exhaustive reporting that’s typical in, say, conservative media sources. Unfortunately they failed in a couple critical spots.