Sabrina Rubin Erdely Speaks!

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of a now-discredited article in Rolling Stone magazine about a rape at a University of Virginia fraternity, issued this statement:

“The past few months, since my Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” was first called into question, have been among the most painful of my life. Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.

“Over my 20 years of working as an investigative journalist — including at Rolling Stone, a magazine I grew up loving and am honored to work for — I have often dealt with sensitive topics and sources. In writing each of these stories I must weigh my compassion against my journalistic duty to find the truth. However, in the case of Jackie and her account of her traumatic rape, I did not go far enough to verify her story. I allowed my concern for Jackie’s well-being, my fear of re-traumatizing her, and my confidence in her credibility to take the place of more questioning and more facts. These are mistakes I will not make again.

“Reporting on rape has unique challenges, but the journalist still has the responsibility to get it right. I hope that my mistakes in reporting this story do not silence the voices of victims that need to be heard.”

Face it honey, one of two things happened:

1) You went on a mission and that blinded you to the basics of who, what, when, where.

2) You got suckered.

28 thoughts on “Sabrina Rubin Erdely Speaks!”

  1. …in the case of Jackie and her account of her traumatic rape, I did not go far enough..

    Seems she’s still in denial. Face it, the whole thing was made up, FFS. and you are going to pay.

  2. It’s the USA. Presumably the fraternity and its members can sue her to buggery. Serve her right.

  3. She was, according to the Colombia report, sent to report on campus rape.

    Confirmation bias is a hideous thing. And then, as seen in many places, the awful phenomenon of “prosecution capture” takes over and all scepticism is cast into the outer darkness.

    Alternatively, she could be a little bit gullible or even dim?

  4. Presumably the fraternity and its members can sue her to buggery. Serve her right.

    Probably not as easily as you might think, according to Eugene Volokh.

    It seems that the frat members are likely to be too many to sue as a group for defamation aimed at members of the group and nobody was sufficiently accurately identified. The frat corporately might sue, but can’t get the right sort of damages.

    If a judge accepts that it was sufficiently alleged (it was clearly implied) that any UVA frat member must have been through a similar ritual with a.n.other victim, that seems to be the best hope.

  5. Having followed this from the beginning (like a few of us probably) on the Yank blogs, I’m pretty sure UVA was only one of a series of universities she visited.

    Seems like at the others she couldn’t even find someone who was prepared to invent a rape.

    Of course, there are universities and fraternities where rapes have occurred, but let’s not go there.

  6. @Interested

    Wasn’t there some evidence of her having sniffed around until she found the “right” story? Or am I misremembering?

  7. The thing is there are still feminazi’s and SJW’s who will insist they “believe” the “victim”.

    They won’t be satisfied until the Salem witch trials are started again, this time with white men, and sooner or later they’ll find a credible cause celebre on which to carry it out..

  8. And there are other “stories” like them – take for example the mad bird who carries a mattress around campus with her…

  9. “the mad bird who carries a mattress around campus with her”
    To demonstrate that she’s up for it?

  10. Surreptitious Evil
    April 6, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    And how is that going to hurt her career in the USA?

    ======================

    Zactly. Journalists are lower than bankers, yet they have a very high opinion of themselves.
    Lowlifes with an ego.

  11. “the mad bird who carries a mattress around campus with her”

    To demonstrate that she’s up for it?

    Unfortunately not. Rather it is a protest that her “rape” story wasn’t believed by college authorities due to unfortunate “facts”.

  12. Philip Scott Thomas

    @Surreptitious Evil –

    Aack, you beat me to it.

    Nice to see another Insty reader, though. 🙂

  13. That apology is a piece of art, I must say. She starts it off by complaining how hard this whole thing was on her.
    Then she apologizes to: – RS readers, weird to apologize to them first, but ok
    – her editors at RS, i.e. the people who were complicit in her abomination of an article seeing the light of day
    – to the U.V.A. “community”
    – to any actual victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful.
    Erdely follows this up by justifying her refusal do to any basic fact checking before accusing people of horrible crimes as being caused by her compassion (someone pass the sick bag please) and finishes the whole thing by mentioning her hope that her stupidity won’t stop real victims of sexual assault of speaking out.
    Conspicuously absent from her letter are the people whose lives her article actually could have ruined by painting them as crazed rapists.

    I usually expect an apology to include the people that were actually wronged, but clearly Erdely’s compassion doesn’t extend that far.

    What a fucking disgraceful piece of shit that woman is.

    I hope she and the rag she works for get sued for all they have.

  14. Judging by the other dubious pieces she has written, and by how she went ‘rape-shopping’ on this one, it’s:

    (3) She’s writing propaganda pieces she knows are full of lies. She writes them for political reasons, and also to further her own journalistic career. She prefers to find some patsies to do the initial lying for her, to provide some minimal cover for her arse. She will then abandon, if necessary, good journalistic practise to keep a good story going, even when she knows that doing so calls the whole underlying basis of the story into question.

  15. “We do disagree with any suggestion that this was Jackie’s fault,” said Coll.” [a co-author of the Columbia report]
    I have trouble following this line of argument. “Jackie” made assertions of fact, which eventually turned out to be incorrect. In fact, not only incorrect, but bald-faced, deliberate, reckless lies about people knew, and some about people she may or may not have known. Some of the statements were distortions of the truth, and may be due to errors of memory and observation, but many of them were made up from whole cloth, with no connection to any observable fact. She made these statements to a reporter, and had to know (and seemingly very much wanted) hat they would be widely publicized.

    I think we can all agree that RS collectively, and Erdely in particular carry a huge measure of blame – but how can you disagree with the mere suggestion that this is “Jackie’s” fault? She has to bear some measure of responsibility. Similarly for the following Graun citation – Yes, RS screwed up in being so credulous (it must be hard to turn away a good story that plays to our prejudices), but “Jackie” had a duty to tell the truth in the first instance

  16. So Much for Subtlety

    dcardno – “Yes, RS screwed up in being so credulous (it must be hard to turn away a good story that plays to our prejudices), but “Jackie” had a duty to tell the truth in the first instance”

    Well yes, but the problem is that rape is like child sex abuse and anything to do with the Catholic Church – it attracts the mentally ill who have a problem dealing with their fantasies. There are people who clearly wish they were raped, but are appalled by their desires. There are people who are crying out for the attention. Not many but some.[1]

    Journalists should know this. It ought to be part of their training or at least something older journalists teach younger ones. So they have a responsibility to tell the good from the bad. You can’t blame the mentally ill for being mentally ill. You can blame the people who ought to recognise that they are mentally ill for not recognising it.

    [1] See Andrea Dworkin who clearly liked men, or at least liked sex, with dangerous men too, but had trouble dealing with it. Feminists don’t recognise her life’s work as a cry for help but a cry for help it was.

  17. What purpose do you think defending the RCC does, as you so often do?

    The Church itself has recognised it’s very serious failings in this regard, and I think they may know a little more than you.

    This Erdely has made an (sueable) idiot of herself, and put the Rolling Stone at genuine risk, through trying to make the facts fit her own warped worldview. This is not unlike what the Church did.

  18. So Much for Subtlety

    Jack C – “What purpose do you think defending the RCC does, as you so often do?”

    It doesn’t have a purpose. It is not my Church. It is true. Therefore it should be said.

    “The Church itself has recognised it’s very serious failings in this regard, and I think they may know a little more than you.”

    Good for them. The problem is that they have been prevented from mounting an effective defence so who knows? Not that it matters because what I said – that the Church attracts weirdos – is true. It does. As does rape.

  19. That Valenti article’s a piece of work.

    “The very idea that journalists should have to be so especially considerate to alleged rape victims that it damages their reporting is absurd. Where did Rolling Stone get this nonsense? Also, that they are now suggesting that the lies they published might be in any way related to the liar who told them the lies means THEY SHOULD BURN.”

    Did she not read it before submission?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *